Plz make this branliest answer!!
Based on the question above, Dickens did not consider the second man as a good listener.
<h3>Synopsis</h3>
From the text, he has clearly defined a good listener.
<h3 /><h3>
Good listener</h3>
- Knowing what to listen to, the good listener also knows what not to listen to; knowing the time to listen, he also knows the time to talk. When he feels that this time has come, it is clear that he must make a better talk.
<h3>Good talker</h3>
- I also agree with Dickens on who a good talker or listener should be. A good talker knows the maxims of communication and so does a listener.
In conclusion, we can conclude that the correct answer is No. He would not consider him to be a good listener.
Learn more about Dickens here: brainly.com/question/25874822"
There are a few errors in this sentence.
Here is what it should look like:<span></span>
<span><span>She enjoys eating at two types of restaurants, Italian and Mexican.</span></span>
<span><span>- the verb enjoy must agree with the subject she</span></span>
<span><span>-type must be plural because you are talking about two restaurants in your sentences</span></span>
<span><span>- I believe a comma should follow restaurants because there needs to be a pause. </span></span>
<span><span>You don't use a semicolon in this case because you are not connecting an independent clause. Independent clauses can stand alone meaning it is a complete thought/complete sentence. In your case Italian and Mexican cannot do cannot stand alone. </span></span>
<span><span>**Not only are semicolons used to connect independent clauses they are also used connect a thought meaning if the first part of the sentence is an independent clause but the second part isn't and it continues on talking about the first part of the sentence then you would put a semicolon between the two. For example: Love isn't something you experience; it's something you chose to do even when it is hard to do. (I made this sentence up).</span></span>
<span><span>Hopefully this helps and good luck.</span></span>
<span><span />
</span>
Answer:
as jasmine danced her shoes fell off
As one president’s term ends and another begins, there is a ceremony. Its importance is one of symbolism rather than substance. The Constitution is clear: On Jan. 20, there will be a transfer of power. There is no mention of an inauguration.
By definition, ritual acts have no direct effect on the world. A ceremonial event is one that symbolically affirms something that happens by other, more direct means. In this case, the election – not the inauguration – makes the president, although an oath is required before exercising his power.
Nonetheless, ceremonies matter. Having spent two decades studying ritual, I can attest to that. So can the recent history of inaugurations: In 2009, Barack Obama misplaced one word when reciting the presidential oath of office. As a result, he decided to retake the oath the next day. And in 2017, Donald Trump insisted that his inauguration was attended by a record-setting crowd, even as everyone’s eyes saw otherwise. He saw the size of the attendance as a measure of his legitimacy.
