Answer:
On a snowy Saturday morning, two cars collided in our street. Their drivers were not seriously injured, but they were certainly a bit shocked. One of them had his young daughter with him, but she left the accident unscathed.
Antecedent: cars; pronoun: their
Antecedent: drivers; pronouns: they; them
Antecedent: one; pronouns: his; him
Antecedent: daughter; pronoun: she
Explanation:
A pronoun is a word used to substitute or refer back to a noun in a sentence. Pronouns help avoid unnecessary repetition. The word they substitute or refer back to is called an antecedent.
Let's use the answer above as an example.
- On a snowy Saturday morning, two cars collided in our street. Their drivers were not seriously injured... → Notice we could have said "the cars' divers" in the sentence. However, we would be repeating the word "cars" unnecessarily, so it is better to use "their" instead.
- One of them had his young daughter with him, but she left the accident unscathed. → To avoid saying "but the daughter left", thus repeating the word "daughter", we use the pronoun "she".
You could make flash cards out of the key points you need to know. I use an app called quizlet to make flash cards. Hope it helps!
Answer:
A. It convinces her that she must resist the teacher's punishment.
Explanation:
Aida Bortnik's short story "Celeste's Heart," tells the story of a young girl standing up for an injustice she believes is subjected to in school. The little girl Celeste finds herself standing up for what she believes is wrong for the sake of her little brother's future.
After being punished by her teacher at school, Celeste began to change when her brother asked <em>"When am I going to go to school?"</em> This made her think of <em>"him in the middle of the schoolyard, with his arm stretched out measuring the distance, the body tense, feeling cold and angry and afraid, in a line in which all the others were as small as he was."</em> This realization made her convinced that she must resist the teacher’s punishment for the sake of her little brother.
Thus, the correct answer is option A.
In the first text, Zimbardo argues that people are neither "good" or "bad." Zimbardo's main claim is that the line between good and evil is movable, and that anyone can cross over under the right circumstances. He tells us that:
"That line between good and evil is permeable. Any of us can move across it....I argue that we all have the capacity for love and evil--to be Mother Theresa, to be Hitler or Saddam Hussein. It's the situation that brings that out."
Zimbardo argues that people can move across this line due to phenomena such as deindividualization, anonymity of place, dehumanization, role-playing and social modeling, moral disengagement and group conformity.
On the other hand, Nietzsche in "Morality as Anti-Nature" also argues that all men are capable of good and evil, and that evil is therefore a "natural" part of people. However, his opinion is different from Zimbardo in the sense that Nietzsche believes that judging people as "good" and "bad" is pointless because morality is anti-natural, and we have no good reason to believe that our behaviour should be modified to fit these precepts.
