By inference, the way in which Zaroff is portrayed as Rainsford’s foil is that: "Zaroff is a person without a conscience, but Rainsford has one." (Option B)

<h3>What is the explanation for the above inference?</h3>

As evidenced by the excerpt, Zaroff is not opposed to murdering others, which he regards as a form of hunting.

He has no regard for human life and is unconcerned whether they live or die, which distinguishes his character from Rainsford's.

Learn more about inference at;
brainly.com/question/25913650
#SPJ1

6 0

2 years ago

Which sentence in the excerpt supports the claim that the American colonies could thrive independently from Britain?

viva [34]

C) But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had anything to do with her. thus option C is correct.

<h3>Why British rule of American colonies?</h3>

Although each colony had its own government, the British king maintained power over them. Many colonists were irate by the 1770s because they lacked self-government. This implied that they were unable to rule themselves and establish their own rules. The king demanded that they pay enormous taxes.

According to Paine's claim in Option C, America would have actually been better off if it had not been under British rule. According to him, America's progress and ability to prosper even more were really hampered by its rule by the British. Both options A and B make the case that America needs Britain to succeed. Option A claims that for America to be happy, a relationship with Britain is crucial. America is compared to a child in Option B. According to this, a child should never consume meat if they can get by on milk alone. America should therefore just require Britain. Although Paine evidently finds this absurd, the premise does not support the claim.