I believe these parts provide direct characterization: "<span>Endowed with commonsense, as massive and hard as blocks of granite, fastened together by stern rigidity of purpose, as with iron clamps, he followed out his original design, probably without so much as imagining an objection to it."
The writer clearly and directly describes the character's personal features, as well as his internal motivation for an action. It is opposed to indirect characterization, where we can grasp the character's traits or motivation through his/her actions or speech.</span>
The speaker compares “Imagination” in the poem, to a soaring bird through a variety of forces in the universe. He believes, that there are a lot of advantages of having an imagination, it keeps you sane and your ideas can spread like wildfire through the process. Thus, option "A" is correct.
<h3>What is the theme of the poem "On Imagination"?</h3>
In the poem "On Imagination" by Phyllis Wheatley, imagination was compared to that of a soaring bird probably because the bird can reach the highest of mountains, the clouds and even beyond the sky. Just like the imagination, the bird is limitless and with no boundaries. The bird can see everything up and out there that cannot be seen by common folks much like the imagination wherein everything is possible and anything and everybody exists.
The bird just like the imagination flies so high to the vast outer space seeing wonders and beauties as they travel and fly leaving those in time when the imagination needs to go back to reality and the bird to his home.
Thus, option "A" is correct.
To learn more about "On Imagination" click here:
brainly.com/question/14516625
#SPJ1
1. Martha and Carlo play golf on Saturday.
2. Six juicy hamburgers sizzled on the grill.
3. The workers cleaned the pool last week.
4. David had scored twelve points.
5. Our neighbors have new car.
6. The rain blew through the open window.
7. Jasmin and her brothers are planting seedlings in the backyard.
8. The restaurant staff prepares lunch for the entire crew.
9. Serena reads thirty books this year.
10. The ceremony began at three o'clock.
Answer: Yes, If punishments were harsh enough, there would probably be no crime.
Explanation: If people who disobeyed the law were strongly punished, then it would be less likely that people would break the rules of the government. Less people would speed, and more people would probably start being more serious about it. For example, crimes like bank robberies would probably become less likely if they had to pay off all of the money they stole. Being punished for certain things could be harsher. If this happens, the amount of crime will probably decrease, but it will not completely disappear. This is why I think If punishments were harsh enough, there would be no crime.
Answer:
If you're asking if they are correct then yes
Explanation:
