Answer:
This argument makes sense.
Explanation:
The invisible hand is a concept associated with the economy that refers to the ability to generate economic (or social) goods through an individual who works for himself and generates those goods in a way that these goods are available to society unintentionally, since you don't care about anything but yourself.
Taking into account that this concept states that some people can generate good situations for society through a selfish and evil reason, we can agree that the argument shown in the question above makes sense.
Answer:
Explanation:
I believe the author wanted to portray a comparison of "the old way of thinking" and "the new way of thinking. Sir Marquis represented the arrogance that aristocrats had towards poor people, how they look down on them, and how they wanted to mantain the poor poor and the wealthy wealthy. While Sir Charles represented a younger generation with a different view of the word. Still being an aristocrat, Charles wanted to help people have better opportunities in life. But mostly, he resented the upper class (like his uncle sir marquis) on how they extorted the lower class. This contradiction between predecessor and descendant demonstrated that no matter what your linage is, each person has their own thoughts about life. He wanted to portray that new generations can help build a better society.
Answer: Answer choices?
Explanation: this is a tough question to answer without any context, are there any answer choices?
