The correct arrangement of the events chronologically in <em>To Build a Fire</em> is:
- The man is given advice and a warning by the old timer about travelling alone in such low temperatures.
- The man continues his journey up the left fork.
- He arrives at the fork.
- The man heads up the trail with the dog with only light supplies.
- The man's foot goes through the ice and he is wet.
- The dog puts its foot through the ice.
- Now increasingly aware of the cold, the man lights a fire and eats his sandwich.
- The fire is put out by snowfall from the tree above.
- With great difficulty, he lights another fire.
- The man tries to kill the dog.
- The dog leaves.
- The man freezes to death.
<h3>What is a sequence of events?</h3>
This is known to be the order in which events take place in a story.
Hence, we can the chronological order in which the story is told reveals the journey of the man with his dog, building a fire, and the sad turn of events which led to the death of the man due to the cold temperature.
Read more about <em>sequence of events </em>here:
brainly.com/question/1620200
#SPJ1
Sorry to say this but I think the question is asking you what event would make you feel as happy as billy, not anyone else.
no offense but if you HAVEN'T read then you are a weird human if i can even call you that i read it long time ago just google it
cuz im to lazy to answer it
" com- " ; matches: [C]: prefix ;
_________________________________________________________
" pos" ; matches: [A]: root ;
_________________________________________________________
" -ition" ; {Note that this is the correct spelling.}; matches: [B]: suffix .
_________________________________________________________
Given the word: "composition" .
_________________________________________________________
The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a
situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting
independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to
the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource
through their collective action. The concept and name originate in an
essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land (then colloquially called "the commons") in the British Isles.[1] The concept became widely known over a century later due to an article written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968.[2] In this context, commons is taken to mean any shared and unregulated resource such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator.
It has been argued that the very term 'tragedy of the commons' is a misnomer per se,
since 'the commons' originally referred to a resource owned by a
community, and no individual outside the community had any access to the
resource. However, the term is presently used when describing a problem
where all individuals have equal and open access to a resource.
Hence, 'tragedy of open access regimes' or simply 'the open access
problem' are more apt terms.[3]:171
The tragedy of the commons is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation and sociology.
Although commons have been known to collapse due to overuse (such as
in over-fishing), abundant examples exist where communities cooperate or
regulate to exploit common resources prudently without collapse.
