Answer:
1.)The fact that even though their love was forbidden they still found a way to be with each other. That stuck out to me because no matter what was in their way the love they had for each other was always stronger than what they had to overcome
2.) Instead of talking to each other to figure things out they both ended up dying due to lack of communication. That stuck out to me because the ending couldve have been so different if they had talked things out before they acted on them.
3.) Romeo and juliet risked everything their families, lovers, friends. They had no problem throwing those things away for each other their commitment to each other was so strong. That stuck out to me because now adays not everyone is willing to drop everything for the one person they love.
Explanation: rewrite it however u want or choose completely different ones its up to u :)
The ball rolled the base
The ball passed the base
(bold is the right answer)
Hope i could help!
i agree because life is hard, and there are so many journeys we have to go through, and those journeys will only be easier if we understand that not everything is perfect and going to go your way.
The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "c. He stood up to Covey and fought back." Frederick Douglass react to Edward Covey, the cruel slave "breaker" who often beat him by standing<span> up to Covey and fought back.</span>
In the story of “Shooting an Elephant”, when the narrator views the body of the Burmese man who had been creased to death in a crucifix-styled posture, he has an overwhelming attack of conscience. The narrator realizes that just like the Burmese man, the elephant had been crucified, as well, and it does not appease the narrator that his killing the elephant was within legal parameters.The narrator apprehends that the law and conscience are often not well-matched. He is there in an official capability and is hated for it by the Burmese. He equally has hated them for their anger. Yet, when he allows his morality to surface, he understands that he is part of the structure that is there to tyrannize the Burmese. The fact that he holds a position of authority does not essentially make it a moral duty. This is true of his killing the elephant. He did not want to lose face in front of the Burmese, and he was legally justified in killing it, but morally he knows that it was actually morally wrong.
