Emotions that I felt:
Shock, dread, like a void/empty, pensive and melancholy.
Why?
There is morbid detail in this poem which relates to soldiers of war who have died.
Despite their honorable sacrifice in war, in modern times, they have become forgotten (highlighted by the indifference of the conductor) and have become associated with the grass of the Earth.
This relates to a much quoted verse from the Old Testament of the Bible “All men are flesh”.
The main principle is that men are born of dust and shall once return as dust/soil (to the Earth) - elements of this are also true even for non-believers - carbon cycle.
Paraphrase is to rephrase a sentence based on your originality.
Answer:
Explanation:
Rakesh followed up on his best therapeutic understanding and confined his patient's eating routine - just this time his patient is his father. One of Desai's objectives is to address where moral limits lie in connection to applying Western logical standards to customary social circumstances: Ought to Rakesh have treated his father, surprisingly, similar to a patient? Would Rakesh have been abusing restorative morals on the off chance that he didn't have any significant bearing exacting standards to his father similarly he did to his different patients?
Two things occured because of Rakesh's limitations on his father's eating regimen. In any event one of these things likewise caused the change that overwhelmed Rakesh's character. One thing is that his rural community raised spouse selfishly and ungenerously enjoyed denying and depriving her father in-law of things he needed. The other is that the father bribed Rakesh's kids to get him the things he needed that Rakesh kept him from having. At the point when Rakesh found the deceit and the misleading, he was maddened, as any parent may be. He not just chided his father in the harshest terms- - something he had never done - he developed the confinements on and expanded the supervision of his eating routine.
The inquiry is raised regarding whether Rakesh's displeasure was supported; regardless of whether it had consistently been a piece of his character however not demonstrated in light of the fact that his father had never prompted it; was on the grounds that he esteemed his father a substandard and ruining impact. The story closes with a greater number of inquiries than it began with. Truth be told, there is an inquiry raised about the way of life that energizes such carefully characterized and communicated jobs that can be so ruinous when turned around or meddled with.
What made Kennedy stand out was his use of a striking black suit.
<h3>Why was Kennedy's outfit important?</h3>
- Because he gave an air of authority to the public.
- Because it made his image more striking and expressive than Nixon's.
- Because it attracts the attention of the public.
The question is referring to the debate held between Nixon and Kennedy during the presidential race in 1960. The debate was televised and photographed, allowing the entire American population to see and hear the two candidates. However, color media was not popular at the time and people viewed the debate and its participants in black and white.
This was advantageous for Kennedy who wore a black suit, while Nixon wore a gray suit. This made Kennedy's image stand out and catch the public's attention more effectively.
Learn more about Kennedy x Nixon:
brainly.com/question/3078650
#SPJ1
Answer:
A house with no cars in the driveway.
Explanation:
it's missing a predicate because there is no verb.
if it said
The house has no cars in the driveway.
or
I saw a house with no cars in the driveway.
It would be a sentence because saw is an action verb and has is a have verb.
