In the first sentence, the "he" is a nominative as it is a subject.
In the second sentence it is an object as the form "me" is actually "I", but "i" is a nominative form and "me" is an objective form.
In the third sentence "Us" is also used in objective form as "us" is an object of an action by "my sister".
(9.3+4.2)×(6.5+8.4-3.3-6.4)= 13.5× 5.2= 70.2
Tevye's analogy is faulty in this situation because "Tevye's analogy is supporting the idea of marrying only Jews; however, it does not explain
the reason why this is supposed to happen".
<h3>How Tevye's analogy is different</h3>
Tevye's analogy is faulty in this situation because it doesn't give reasons to why one is supposed to "seek his own kind".
It is good to seek one's own kind so as to avoid the cultural problem in marriage. It helps to solve the problem of origin differences.
Culture is very important in any relationship. In order not to have different perspectives on an issue, it is ideal to go into relationships with people of the same culture.
Learn more about analogy:
brainly.com/question/13978016
Answer:
I don't know for sure if this is the correct passage-
It ensures readers understand its significance in the passage. It creates a matter-of-fact tone as Machiavelli demonstrates the positive effects of a ruler's cruelty.
Answer:
They mirror the author’s progression from fear and embarrassment to understanding and hope.
Explanation:
