The correct answer is the second one.
Wait hannah in 13 reasons why??? ok:
You should focus on the positives instead of negatives, because there is always light at the end of the tunnel. Be around those who love you, because they are the people who you can trust, and they will never leave you. Finally, get to know yourself, and be aware of what you are doing. Stay true to what your values are.
I am pretty sure that secondary source more is more helpful than a primary source in hte way : <span>C. A secondary source summarizes large amounts of evidence. Definitely, even though both primary and secondary source are the most essential points in the essay, secondary embraces more information by making conclusions connected to all the paragraphs.
Do hope it will help you!</span>
<span>#1) the difference between the artist's depiction of Caesar's return to Rome and the character Casca's description of Caesar's return.
Answer: In the character's depiction of Caesar’s return to Rome. Caesar is depicted as someone who is hungry for power and will use any means to obtain such great power. In this case Casca believes that he is refusing the crown again and again as a mere trick to make it seem like he has no interest in receiving the Crown and the great power that comes along with it. Casca even goes to describe the crowd as if it were an audience in a play watching a performance.
The painting in the other hand suggest that Caesar is pure and is not even interested in power. It makes it seem as though Caesar was destined by the gods to fall into power. It even makes it seem like Caesar himself could be an angel or even a divine being.
<span>I hope it helps, Regards. </span></span>
In the story of “Shooting an Elephant”, when the narrator views the body of the Burmese man who had been creased to death in a crucifix-styled posture, he has an overwhelming attack of conscience. The narrator realizes that just like the Burmese man, the elephant had been crucified, as well, and it does not appease the narrator that his killing the elephant was within legal parameters.The narrator apprehends that the law and conscience are often not well-matched. He is there in an official capability and is hated for it by the Burmese. He equally has hated them for their anger. Yet, when he allows his morality to surface, he understands that he is part of the structure that is there to tyrannize the Burmese. The fact that he holds a position of authority does not essentially make it a moral duty. This is true of his killing the elephant. He did not want to lose face in front of the Burmese, and he was legally justified in killing it, but morally he knows that it was actually morally wrong.
