<span> A. Problem/solution
This paragraph starts by identifying the problem that NACA faced: they needed more computers. The solution is then described in detail. They ended up hiring women, and the paragraph goes on to show how and why the number of women and the racial diversity at NACA grew over the next ten years. </span>
Some of the phrases used by Cassius to show contempt for Caeser are;
- Cassius has basically called Caesar a girl
- He also thinks having Caesar as king would cause a "monstrous state."
<h3>How does Cassius contempt for Caeser?</h3>
He show some attitude as well as behavior of worthlessness or beneath consideration because he called Caesar a girl.
In his thoughts, he sees Caesar who is a king would cause a "monstrous state." and will be fearful.
Learn more about Cassius at;
brainly.com/question/14298787
Answer:
Explanation:
The great thing about any Shakespearean Play is that there are always alternatives to any answer to any question. So in this case, her mental state is really a two edged sword.
I'm sure she did not fully see what the consequences of her part in Duncan's murder would be. To her, it was a simple matter of killing Duncan which would lead Macbeth from being Thane to King.
She sounds tough as she urges Macbeth to commit the dead. There's nothing I know of that contradicts that stance.
But what she finds out is that Macbeth has
- powerful enemies
- witches who are very crafty
- witches whose power Macbeth has not taken into consideration.
- witches whose prophecies Macbeth does not take the trouble to interpret
Lady Macbeth is not told enough to make her cautious. All she sees is the crown. I do not like her very much, but I do pity her.
The best answer would be D because the family has strong emotions of fear toward the terrible winds.
I hope this helps!
Answer:
When examining Fahrenheit 451 as a piece of dystopian fiction, a definition for the term "dystopia" is required. Dystopia is often used as an antonym of "utopia," a perfect world often imagined existing in the future. A dystopia, therefore, is a terrible place. You may find it more helpful (and also more accurate) to conceive a dystopian literary tradition, a literary tradition that's created worlds containing reactions against certain ominous social trends and therefore imagines a disastrous future if these trends are not reversed. Most commonly cited as the model of a twentieth-century dystopian novel is Yevgeny Zamiatin's We (1924), which envisions an oppressive but stable social order accomplished only through the complete effacement of the individual. We, which may more properly be called an anti-utopian work rather than a dystopian work, is often cited as the precursor of George Orwell's 1984 (1948), a nightmarish vision of a totalitarian world of the future, similar to one portrayed in We, in which terrorist force maintains order.
We and 1984 are often cited as classic dystopian fictions, along with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932), which, contrary to popular belief, has a somewhat different purpose and object of attack than the previously mentioned novels. Huxley's Brave New World has as its target representations of a blind faith in the idea of social and technological progress.
In contrast to dystopian novels like Huxley's and Orwell's, however, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 does not picture villainous dictators (like Orwell's O'Brien) or corrupt philosopher-kings (like Huxley's Mustapha Mond), although Bradbury's Captain Beatty shares a slight similarity to Mustapha Mond. The crucial difference is that Bradbury's novel does not focus on a ruling elite nor does it portray a higher society, but rather, it portrays the means of oppression and regimentation through the life of an uneducated and complacent, though an ultimately honest and virtuous, working-class hero (Montag). In contrast, Orwell and Huxley choose to portray the lives of petty bureaucrats (Winston Smith and Bernard Marx, respectively), whose alienated lives share similarities to the literary characters of author Franz Kafka (1883-1924).
Explanation:
