Answer:
Subordinate clause: "that they could outsmart the law"
Clause type: Adjective clause
Explanation:
A subordinate or dependent clause is a group of words with a subject and a verb that does not express a complete thought on its own, and therefore it cannot stand by itself: it needs to depend on another clause to have meaning. In a sentence, this type of clause may function as an adjective, an adverb or as a noun.
As an adjective clause, it describes, modifies or adds further information to another noun; and always begins whether with a relative pronoun (who, whom, whose, that, or which) or a relative adverb (when, where, or why).
In the sentence, "that they could outsmart the law" is a subordinate clause because it has a subject (they) and a verb (outsmart) and it can not express a complete thought. Furthermore, it is also an adjective clause because it begins with the relative pronoun "that" and it describes the noun "belief". What belief did they have? "that they could outsmart the law."
it is not D because im taking the test now and i got that wrong
Answer:
It shows he is arrogant because he talks just as much as Pickering.
Explanation:
"Pygmalion" is a play written by George Bernard Shaw.
Henry Higgins was a professor and the author of Higgins' Universal Alphabet. He is cold-hearted and rude though he was very educated. In Act 1, is the first time when the readers get to meet Higgins. He was sitting at the Covent Garden with others who were waiting for the rain to stop. He was sitting at the back of the crowd noting everyone and making notes.
On page 5, the character of Higgins is developed by picturizing him as an arrogant man as he talks so much. His conversation with Pickering reveals that he is a rude and arrogant man and not a gentleman as one would expect an educated man to be.
Thus the correct answer is the first option.
This question is incomplete. Here's the complete question.
Read The Lessons of Salem, by Laura Shapiro
What ironic situation does Shapiro describe in paragraph 3?
Answer: The irony of having those who “confessed” to witchcraft spared and those who defended their innocence being killed.
Explanation:
The Puritan witch hunts of 1692 would get confessions by torturing the suspects to justify the hunt itself, and those who would refuse to confess would end up being hung to death. The irony lies in the fact that none of the suspects had anything to do with witchcraft, and the proceedings of the trials were especially prejudicial to those who were honest.
The answer is threatening (I got it correct on the test)
