Answer:
False
Explanation:
Shakespeare wrote his plays for all to see . The wealthy sat in the front, while the poorer classes sat in the back .
Saved as it's collective, he's collecting it
Socs, who jump greasers and wreck houses and throw beer blasts for kicks, and get editorials in the paper for being a public disgrace one day and an asset to society the next.
Well, we know that setting is location and surroundings, usually! Irony/sarcasm doesn't apply here, as it's usually in the form of dialogue or much more than those statements.Even if you were confused about tragic resolution, you know enough that there isn't anything particularly 'tragic' nor 'resolving' about this excerpt. So characterization seems best fit, giving an idea on the individual and their attire and how they are interacting with the other! But please, you're free to interpret it yourself in any case if doubtful upon my own.
Answer:
Nadia Arumugam will completely agree with this cartoon because she clearly stated that 'no one is completely banned from taking unlimited amounts of soda since they are not restricted from ordering two or more bottles of soda if they so desire'.
Explanation:
In the cartoon the picture of a man drinking a giant-sized soda before the ban, was compared to him after the ban buying two cans of soda. There was clearly no difference between the two because the objective of the ban which was to reduce obesity was defeated. The man remained obese.
This is in line with Nadia's argument that the ban does not prevent anyone from drinking an unlimited amount of soda since they could simply buy two or more cans if they so desire.
