Sure, trees produce oxygen that help us breath and animals help with the production of food
Stream-of-consciousness is a very stylistic form of free indirect discourse. It is not spontaneous, or unintentional, or anything of the sort. In fact, if anything, it's just the opposite. It's highly stylized, but also purposeful and calculating. It sees the world wholly through the character's mind instead of through their senses, save for how the mind and the senses interact.
It relates to a lot of things - free association, synesthesia, free indirect discourse, without actually being any of them.
<span>There's only a handful of writers that can actually do stream-of-consciousness writing with any success - Joyce and Faulkner come to mind immediately. In short, there's nothing wrong with trying it, but there's also nothing wrong with not having done that, but having done, say, free association instead.</span>
To really beautifully portray the emotion of the story/meaning that he is telling.
Answer:
Yes, it's correct
Explanation:
The nonsmokers have the right to tell smokers not to pollute their air, it follows that people who don’t own cars have the right to tell car owners not to drive, because the air from smokers (tobaco, etc.) can create bad impacts on others' health and if the car owners do not know how to drive and still drive their cars carelessly, it will cause the traffic accidents. So, you do not need to own any cars to have the right to tell car owners not to drive.
Sentiences 3 and 8 because they express emotional thought other than fact. For sentence three, using "terrible waste" can be debateable and shows more of an opinion. And sentence 8, by using "shouldn't" showing its still a posssiby something can or can not happen.
