Answer: The author provides an interpretation of the event.
Explanation: There is no proof that he or she was actually present for the event.
In Arthur Miller's The Crucible, the theme that best describe John Proctor's final decision is: Personal honor determines a person's self-worth and value.
Proctor's desicion of refusing to provide a false confession to save his life is actually his final redemption. At the end of the play, when he tears apart the written confession, he understands that his honor is more important than his public image and he is ready to accept his destiny. Furthermore, his wife, Elizabeth realizes that John, even with his flaws, is a good man who is trying to save his soul and he will not yield to pressure.
Answer:
Watch the movie and then buy his sister a gift she will enjoy.
Explanation:
The given passage from "The Quinceanera" shows how the narrator was in a dilemma on what to do- either get his sister a gift or go to the movies which he had already planned to see. He knows he has to get the gift but he also did not want to miss the movie.
And then, he mentioned that his sister loved movies so maybe he can get "two birds with one stone". He will go to the movies and get her move tickets for a gift, which simplifies his dilemma. So, going along the narrative, we can best predict that he will go to the movies and then get her a gift she will enjoy.
Thus, the correct answer is the third option.
Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize stands in front of a room full of important government people; he wants his audience to recognize that being indifferent is not the same as being innocent – indifference, “after all, is more dangerous than anger or hatred”.
He forces the listeners to wonder which kind of people they are. To him, during the Holocaust, people fit into one of “three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders” and he forces the bystanders to decide whether or not to stay indifferent to the actual situation. He takes the time to list various actual civil wars and humanitarian crises (line 17 of his speech) and contrast them with WWII.
He makes sure that his audience realise what is at stake “Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment” [for mankind]. He wants the audience to be really affected by what they hear – so he talks to them in their condition of human being: “Is it necessary at times to practice [indifference] simply to … enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine”. And he also talks to them as government people with their duty and the power they have over the actual conflicts. He wants them to compare themselves with their predecessors during WWII: “We believed that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on … And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew.”
Wiesel finishes his speech by expressing hope for the new millennium. We believed he addresses these final words to those who will refuse to stay indifferent. But it seems that Wiesel would count them in the minority: “Some of them -- so many of them -- could be saved.” probably refers to this minority.
The central idea is the same as the main idea. Most of the time, the main idea is mentioned in the Title. Without reading the essay, I do not know what the central/main idea is.
