Answer + Explanation:
As the society grows more and more health conscious, stronger voices to ban smoking in all public areas begin to emerge. Banning public has been used as a mean for government to discourage smoking and also to improve city image. It is almost impossible to achieve consensus on this issue as it creates great inconvenience for the smokers. However, I believe smoking should be banned in public places and my reasons are as follow.
Looking at the <em>health aspect</em>, smoking should be banned in public places because it is not only a health hazard for the smoker, it creates more harm to the others. Cigarette is a known carcinogen that has been associated with increased rates of lung cancer and heart disease. However, the hazard does not end there, second-hand smoke has been proven to create more detrimental effects on health on both the smokers and the people around them. This is especially harmful for those with weaker immune systems such as children and elderly.
Looking at the <em>sociological aspect</em>, smoking should be banned in public places because smoking is a personal choice. One’s personal enjoyment should not be at the expense of others’ health. When a person smokes in indoor public areas such as restaurants and shopping centres, pollutants continue to circulate the premise and affecting the health of everyone within the building. It is unfair for the non-smokers to be forced to share the health risks of the smokers.
To sum up, public places are shared by all, smokers and non-smokers, old and young, and should be made friendly to all. <u>Negative effects of smoking go beyond the smoker himself, creating health problems of the public.</u> While some choose to accept the side effects of smoking, risks of smoking should not be forced upon others. Therefore, in my humble opinions, smoking should be banned in public places.
The freedom of speech in the colonies was not a thing back then during the British rule in the colonies. So, you can understand the British wanting to keep their grip on the colonies thus the British governors usually restricted what could be printed in the newspaper and thus there wasn't that much information in the newspapers themselves and the newspapers were scarce.
The picture showed
Person vs person: this can also mean man vs man but it’s when there are two characters fighting or against each other
Person vs society: this means that one person is against a big group or a angry mob of some sorts
Person vs destiny: this is when a person is going against faint or against what is going to happen
Person vs technology: this means one person against technology or robots, computers, phones, tv, anything like that is fair game for technology.
I hope that helps
Answer:
The narrator's traveling companion said no for tworeasons: a) we're in a hurry, and b) it's creepy to go
into a crazy person's home.
Explanation:
According to the excerpt from the paragraph 1, it is narrated that the narrator's companion objected while saying they were in a hurry and another reason for the objection was because they were horrified at the sight of the lunatic.
Therefore, the sentence that BEST restates the information in the sentence found in
paragraph 1 is The narrator's traveling companion said no for tworeasons: a) we're in a hurry, and b) it's creepy to go
into a crazy person's home.
