<span>The question given above is incomplete, the options are not given. The options attached to the question are written below:
A. It was her sister Josephine who told her, in broken sentences; veiled hints that revealed in half concealing. Her husband's friend Richards was there, too, near her. It was he who had been in the newspaper office when intelligence of the railroad disaster was received, with Brently Mallard's name leading the list of "killed." He had only taken the time to assure himself of its truth by a second telegram, and had hastened to forestall any less careful, less tender friend in bearing the sad message.
B. She did not hear the story as many women have heard the same, with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance. She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sister's arms. When the storm of grief had spent itself she went away to her room alone. She would have no one follow her.
C. There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.
D. Some one was opening the front door with a latchkey. It was Brently Mallard who entered, a little travel-stained, composedly carrying his grip-sack and umbrella. He had been far from the scene of the accident, and did not even know there had been one. He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richards' quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife.
ANSWER
The correct option is C.
The statement given in option C explains the new situation in which Mallard's wife find herself after she was told that her husband was involved in a train accident. It is obvious that she had been living for her husband before now and he was the one that was in full control of her will, she was totally dependent on him. But now, she has just gain back her freedom and she is now free to follow the dictates of her own heart and will and not that of someone else. That is true independence.</span>
Answer
he be at home or having breakfeast
Explanation:
ones of those two i think
<span>Madison claimes that you cannot remove the causes of faction because 1) you cannot make all man have the same passions, 2) as long as men have reason, they will have competing interests and 3) you can't take away liberty because that is worse than having factions.
I contend that Madison argued successfully that factions are a natural result of free men using reason.</span>
