Stories often convey deep meaning. Moses and his stories will complicate the pigs' control over the other animals.
The Animal Farm is known to be a novella that was written by George Orwell. It was known to be written in England in 1945.
The story was about a group of farm animals who fought back against their human farmer. They wanted to a society where the animals can be equal.
The pigs were actually are interested in been in charge of all the animals and the stories of Moses is hindering their agenda.
See full question below
Read the passage from chapter 2 of Animal Farm.
The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr. Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. It was situated somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses said. In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place.
Which prediction does this passage best support?
Moses and his stories will complicate the pigs’ control over the other animals.
The pigs will adopt Moses’s ideas and promote them on Animal Farm.
Moses will die and end up on Sugar candy Mountain, thus proving its existence.
The animals will demand that Moses leave the farm and will force him out.
Learn more about Animal Farm from:
brainly.com/question/18936249
Answer:
122 degs
Explanation:
If that angle is 148 degs, and if the angle next to it is supplementary, that means that you can do 180 - 148 to find the angle next to the given.
The angle by the 148 is therefore 32.
It shows that the 32 + another angle is 90 degs because of the symbol, so the angle by it is 90 -32 = 58.
If the triangle is isosceles, that means that the angle by the x is also 58, due to the two hashes through two legs of the triangle.
If they are also supplementary, you can do 180 - 58 to find the answer.
122.
You can do some other methods, such as using the isosceles legs theorem or something I forgot to find x quickly.
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.
Clark v. Arizona
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 2006
Decided June 29, 2006
Full case name
Eric Michael Clark v. State of Arizona
Docket no.
05-5966
Citations
548 U.S. 735 (more)
126 S. Ct. 2709; 165 L. Ed. 2d 842
Case history
Prior
Defendant convicted, Coconino County Superior Court, Sept. 3, 2003; affirmed, Ariz. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2005; review denied, Ariz., May 25, 2005; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 797 (2005).
Holding
Due process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant's evidence of mental defect to only what is relevant to that insanity test, even when mens rea is an element of the charged crime. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority
Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito; Breyer except parts III-B, III-C, and ultimate disposition
Concur/dissent
Breyer
Dissent
Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A)
The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.
The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time that they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing that he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime.
The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity and not to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. Evidence is admissible only to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission.
In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong and so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.