Upstart Crow is a British sitcom which premiered on 9 May 2016 at 10pm on BBC Two as part of the commemorations of the 400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare. Its title quotes "an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers". The series makes a recurring joke on the Marlovian theory of Shakespeare.
Answer: maybe
Explanation:
it really all depends on the person, if they are constantly nagging id say give 1 chance and 1 chance only
Answer:
One word to describe this chapter would be revenge/ harassment (one of these if you wanna choose) because Bob Ewell begins to harass different people in the town because he is mad that Atticus took the job that Ewell wanted so this chapter is all about how Ewell takes his anger out on other people who were connected with the case before and holds a grudge against them
Explanation:
One part of the chapter that surprised me was when Bob Ewell attacks Jem and Scout on their way home in the dark. This chapter shocked me because attacking children is a horrible crime with a huge price to pay and for him willing to do that is crazy. (but in the end Boo kills Ewell) I hope this is still helpful.
In the sentence "These days, parents neglect to watch their children's social media use", we find an example of the hasty generalization fallacy.
Hasty generalization does not present enough evidence to support the argument made and, therefore, generalizes a fact. In the sentence above, there is an affirmation that parents do not watch their children's social media use. How can the speaker state this? Who are these parents: all of them? Just a percentage? What about the parents who do watch their kids' use of social media? Do they not count?
As for the other options given, let's take a look at a brief description of what they mean:
Non sequitur is when a conclusion does not follow the evidence presented. It's an absurd conclusion, considering the information given. --> People like watching movies. Movies have violence. Therefore, having some violence happen to people is desirable.
Post hoc is a fallacy in which the speaker assumes there is a connection between events simply because they happened one after the other. That is, if B happened after A, then B happened because of A. --> If it rained after I had an ice cream, then it rained because I had the ice cream.
False analogy happens when the speaker analyzes two different facts under the same point of view and conditions, drawing a conclusion that is far-fetched. --> Monica is from South America. Alice is also from South America. Therefore, Monica and Alice are from the same country.
