Sentence No 1. "The low note was a grunting, a rumble, the deep discordant growling of an ill-conditioned dog."
Assuming that nobody would want to be compared to an ill-conditioned dog, this sentence expresses mockery. The term "discordant" itself means inharmonious and off-key. Good music is universally known to be harmonious and pleasing to the ears.
Sentence No. 2 "Then suddenly the singer threw up his face, straightened his tubby figure, rose upon his tiptoes, and with a wagging head and scarlet cheeks emitted such a howl as the same dog might have given had his growl been checked by a kick from his master."
The first part of the sentence doesn't express too much mockery, just a frank description, but the second part of the sentence starting from "emitted such a howl" expresses mockery. In this description, the subject's voice is being compared to a pained animal. "A kick from his master" is known to be a universal punishment for dogs (unless the dog enjoys being kicked which is very, very, unlikely). Unless the goal of the subject is to sound like a punished animal, this is not a compliment. A good voice is pleasing to the ear while a howl, consequence of pain, will be loud, shrill, and abrupt.
Sentence No. 3 "Many a singer far better than this absurd fop had been driven amid execration and abuse from the platform."
The narrator in this sentence is being quite straightforward about his opinion on the subject by declaring him an "absurd fop". Absurd means unusual or inappropriate, so if something is called "absurd" it's in a negative way.
Hope this helps!
Answer B changing i think it fits better than any other answer.
<span> It demonstrates Lincoln feels one side placed personal interest before the good of the country as a whole, while the other side was willing to fight to keep the country intact.
This sentence shows that Lincoln clearly thought one side had more justification and goodness in their reason for going to war, trying to save the country, while the other side was just willing to tear it apart. </span>
Answer:
Yes and no.
Explanation:
There are certain consequences that should occur when someone posts on social media, but as long as it doesn't contain any graphic or violent/rude things than I say it is fine. But Social Media does change a lot of people, and can be immensely bad and can impact someone in a negative way. It is important to understand what someone goes through behind a post, since people can do it for the enjoyment of it, or just because they want to. There is no exact answer for me personally, but it depends on what is posted or being posted. I feel as though everything that goes on Social Media will either be toxic or whatever the poster feels they want to share, since some people can share graphic things that can entirely change someones mindset. So there are multiple reasons to believe why and why not things that are posted on social media should be taken accounted for by the poster. I just assume these things based on prior knowledge and what I've personally learned and dealt with. It isn't easy to have your life taken away or be highly famous for posts that may not define someone. I've met multiple people who act "bad" in pictures or posts, and in reality, they are a whole different person. So it entirely depends in my opinion.
