Question Completion:
(A) apparent self-reproach for using poetic diction he has used before
(B) ambition to earn fame by being in the vanguard of poetic movements (C) yearning for a wider range of themes in order to develop his poetic skill
(D) reluctant acknowledgement that he is no longer as prolific as he once was
(E) disgust with his inability to write in a more polished, conventional poetic form
Answer:
1. In context, the question in line 5 ("Why write... ever the same") conveys the speaker's
(E) disgust with his inability to write in a more polished, conventional poetic form.
Explanation:
Line 5 of Sonnet 76 was authored by William Shakespeare and published in 1609. The line conveys the speaker's frustration that he was always speaking on the same subject of love and too often with words that are easily recognizable as his because of their literary features. Sonnet 76 is titled "Why is my verse so barren of new pride," depicting a fruitless womb. But we know that the words of the acclaimed wordsmith have remained prolific ever since. Instead, like the poet, we realize that the description of love remains the same since time immemorial because love has no duplicates or counterfeits.
A family is composed of persons related by blood. As a family, it is inevitable not to experience hardships and struggles. Some examples of these hardships are misunderstanding due to miscommunication. Family members tend to get involved in conflicts because they fail to communicate thus they fail to understand. Individual differences can be a reason because though family members are related by blood it does not guarantee that everyone shall understand everybody because everybody's unique. Financial instability is also another hardship that is commonly experience within a family.
For 2.a the table is linear and the difference is 0.5
For 2.b the table is non- linear because if you divide y from x for each pair then it should all be the same number but it`s not.
In Greek mythology, Midas is a king obsessed with wealth. He asks the gods for the ability to turn anything he touches to gold. The gods grant his wish, and Midas soon realizes this gift is actually a curse. Chesterton uses the story of Midas as an analogy for chasing materialistic success. Much as the authors worship material wealth and pursue it as if it were attainable, Midas learns that his new ability doesn’t help him succeed because it prevents him from performing necessary tasks such as eating. Chesterton reminds readers of the obvious moral of Midas's story and shows that authors who write about success often misinterpret Midas's story—sometimes by using phrases such as "the Midas touch" in a positive light.
Chesterton emphasizes that King Midas is an example of foolishness and failure. He implies that, for the same reason, writers who encourage people to chase material success share Midas's foolishness:
We all know of such men. We are ever meeting or reading about such persons who turn everything they touch into gold. Success dogs their very footsteps. Their life's pathway leads unerringly upwards. They cannot fail.
Unfortunately, however, Midas could fail; he did. His path did not lead unerringly upward. He starved because whenever he touched a biscuit or a ham sandwich it turned to gold. That was the whole point of the story . . .
