Answer:
Round characters are those characters important for the development of the story, playing a huge part in the plot. They are the opposite of 'flat' characters but may not necessarily be the main characters themselves.
Explanation:
Round characters are the exact opposite of flat/ static characters in a story. While the flat characters have no contribution or use in the development of the story, these 'round' characters play an important role in the progress of the story. They also comprise the most challenging for writers to include, for they are constantly involved in every possible part of the story.
Round characters may not necessarily be the main characters, but they do play a huge role in the characterization of others, the development of the story, and may even help in the characterization of the main characters. They may also influence the main characters, making them improve or even destroy them. They play a major part in the plot or subplot of the story that the writers have to have a variety of character layers to them.
Answer: Adam Smith would have disagreed with this statement. He believed government should not regulate the economy or control trade.
Explanation:
Even though Adam Smith believed that the government had a role to play in the economy, he believed that this role should be limited to National defense, upholding civil law and providing public services like education.
He would therefore be against the government regulating trade agreements that allow the passage of goods and services into and out of the country. Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes on the other hand, advocated for government intervention, albeit in varying quantities.
Your answer should be C , words such as “before” “then” “next” “after” stuff like that
-Visible
-In sight
-Viewable
-Evident
-Detected
-conspicuous- obvious/easily see
Answer:
The old African proverb “If you educate a man you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman you educate a family (nation)” was a pioneer in its time for realizing the importance of women’s education when men predominated education opportunities. This maxim recognized the benefits of education and has repeatedly become the motivation for global development efforts to offer education opportunities for women. Yet, fundamentally this maxim bears problematic assumptions that further disempower women and reinforce patriarchal stereotypes. This essay seeks to unpack the assumptions behind the proverb by viewing how educating women is believed to lead to the development of the family and nation in the context of sub-Saharan Africa, an area still facing low female literacy rates and high gender disparity in the enrolment of formal schooling.
