Answer:
Famous texts often have many similarities as it makes good discussions to find all the possible things that are very related to one another. These certain texts between "Romeo and Juliet" and "Pyramus and Thisbe" are almost so closely related, that there are infamous of resemblances that you can point out. This will make our thoughts deeper and more powerful towards both texts
In these two texts,a huge part that plays throughout both tales is the showing of miscommunication and misunderstandings
"Romeo and Juliet” are similar to “Pyramus and Thisbe” for three reasons; the lovers come from disagreeing families , the tales are both tragedy and they are based on misconception and ill-timing. Although these stories are painful, they are also true to human nature, and that is why they are so similar.
Moreover, both the plays"Pyramus and Thisbe" and "Romeo and Juliet", are characterized by strict parental control. The two stories are similar in nature because of the similar hardships that the principal characters go through before eventually passing on.
Brainliest is appreciated if this helps u
Answer:
According to the sheriff's words, we can say that the men found no incriminating evidence at Mrs. Wright's house, because they considered "kitchen stuff" a particularly feminine matter and therefore irrelevant to the investigation of a murder crime.
Explanation:
"A Jury of Her Peers" shows how men consistently underestimate women's ability and contempt for memos in matters they consider to be particularly feminine, even if a serious crime has occurred.
That's because although Mrs. Wright is to blame for the murder of her husband, the men fail to see any evidence that it will break her down. This is because her house was somewhat feminine, with many things related to cooking, which the men considered was not relevant to the investigation, nor was it appropriate for them to be seen handling these kinds of things.
Answer: All right, here goes nothing. *cracks knuckles*
To begin with, the article has a weak claim. While it does vaguely introduce their stance on the topic, it poses it as a question and not a statement. Also, this claim is written in the first person, unlike strong claims that are supposed to be written in the third person. As for the "support" section, even the very beginning strays from the original claim, instead saying why <em>they </em>should own a pet instead of why <em>everyone</em> should be allowed to own pets. For example, in the second paragraph, the author cites a story from a friend of a friend. That is not valid evidence. If it was on the news, however, and the author cited that as evidence instead, the article would be much stronger. The author also delves deeper into their own personal life instead of stating facts as they should have. The transition between paragraphs is clunky at best, with the third paragraph pretty much restating the claim instead of simply saying something like "Pets are helpful to our society." And finally, the entire purpose of that last sentence seems to be to wrap up the article in a hasty fashion, without any attention to restating the claim or the facts presented.
Hope this meets the criteria! Good luck!!
Yes you should if it is not the same characters that talk the you should
A useful small Japanese calculator
