Answer:D
Explanation: I actually just finished this book and did this question so this is the answer that my teacher marked correct
Answer:
From the way this question is structured, I assume it only has one correct answer. In that case, it should be:
"Harper says doctors who read stories are more understanding and therefore, more compassionate or caring, more willing to listen to their patients' stories."
Explanation:
Interpersonal relationships are associations, connections between two or more people, varying when it comes to closeness and intimacy. For an interpersonal relationship to work smoothly, traits such as<u> empathy, compassion, caring, patience, and willingness to listen</u>, among others, are essential. They <u>allow people to truly connect by understanding one another</u>, relating to the other person's feelings.
<u>According to the article, reading stories can help develop those traits. So much so that doctors who read stories display those characteristics more easily, being more understanding toward their patients. That is what the last option tells us. Therefore, we can choose it as the option that best supports the inference that reading fiction can be beneficial to personal relationships.</u>
Answer:
Once there was a farmer. He was an old man. He had four sons. They were very selfish. They always quarrelled with one another.
He was worried about his sons. He was on his death bed. He wanted to teach them a lesson. He asked them to live in unity but in vain.
He asked asked his son to bring a bundle of sticks. He called his sons one by one and asked them to break the bundle. None could do that. then he ordered his son to untie the bundle.
Now each one of them could break the stick easily. He advice his sons to live like a bundle of sticks in unity. If they quarrelled the people would harm them.
The sons promised to live united. The old farmer was happy on this change in his sons.
Moral : Union is strength
Explanation:
For this question, the choices are:
<span>1) Each
2) Both
3) Either
4) Neither
</span>
And the answer is both because it is the only plural pronoun that refers to one or more nouns in the sentence, hence the use of "were". Each, either and neither refer to only one of the other and thus would use "was" instead of "were" to refer to a singular noun.
