People do change. Life experiences and maturity change people. If anyone thinks back to what he was like at eighteen and what he is like at thirty, it would be miracle if changes had not been made in his personality and behaviour.
There are so many events in a person's life that will alter his behaviour and even his/her way of looking at things: marriage, children, jobs, parents' deaths, money problems, divorce, health problems. All of these occurrences will alter the way a person acts and thinks.
Every stage of a person's life will bring different attitudes and changes in what a person does. Sometimes, the changes are for the better. There are instances when a person becomes bitter as he ages. As a person ages, his priorities change. Health issues move to the forefront. Health insurance and doctors become a part of life.
The point is that everyone changes as life events occur. No one stays the same.
Answer:
A). Metaphors fail when they have been used so often that readers gain nothing new from them.
Explanation:
Metaphors are demonstrated as one of the most commonly employed literary devices that involve an implicit comparison between two distinct things sharing common characteristics. For example, she is the moon(girl and moon are completely distinct from each other but share the common characteristic of bringing light in the darkness).
As per the question, metaphor fails 'when they are employed so often that the readers gain nothing new from them.' Metaphors are primarily employed to offer <u>an implicit or symbolic comparison that not only helps the reader transform their understanding but also artistically provides them 'an intrinsic pleasure and transcend the boundaries of literal meaning.' But if they are used so frequently that readers stop gaining that pleasure, experience, and understanding metaphors fail</u>. Thus, <u>option A</u> is the correct answer.
The correct answer to your question would be... B. Them
Reasoning:
Them, is the students. Even though the actual word students is not mentioned "Them" is referring to that group of people making "them" the indirect object.
I hope this helps!
Please Rate & Thank!
Please mark as Brainliest!
Have a wonderful day! : )
Kant's distinction between guardians and minors is based on the propensity of people to dwell in their own immaturity and let others take care of them. Both guardians and minors are victims of this propensity; only, they are placed on the opposite poles. Neither guardians nor minors dare to think for themselves. However, minors almost entirely give up their intellectual potential, indulging in their own laziness of the mind. They rely on different types of guardians. For example, priests are the guardians of their souls; physicians are the guardians of their bodies; politicians are the guardians of their social order, etc. Basically, they are lulled in their comfortable positions of non-thinkers. We have to say, though, that Kant doesn't judge on people for being one or the other. He just proposes that they can rise above those passive positions with the help of enlightenment.
Would you take a picture of the passage and show it? I might be able to help.
