The sentence that suggests the narrator does not closely monitor Bar.tleby's performance after hiring him is given below.
<h3>What is the evidence that the lawyer didn't do thorough background checks on Bar.tleby?</h3>
The textual evidence is as follows;
"The Lawyer asks him: "What earthly right have you to stay here? Do you pay any rent? Do you pay any taxes? Or is this property yours?"
Bar.tleby makes no response, and the Lawyer becomes resigned to the idea that Bar.tleby will simply haunt his office, doing nothing.
The Lawyer believes he is doing a good, Christian thing by allowing Bar.tleby to continue existing in his office."
<h3>Who is Bar.tleby?</h3>
From the text "Bar.tleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street", Bar.tleby is an old scrivener at The Lawyer's office, Turkey. He is cheerful and productive until midday, when he gets dru.nk, grumpy, and basically worth.less.
We never discover his full name since The Lawyer only refers to him by his nickname. A twelve-year-old assistant in the legal office.
Learn more about narrator:
brainly.com/question/28223605
#SPJ1
Answer:
???
Explanation:
I need the story to answer this.
Answer:
There are two ways which we can use to change the sentence from affirmative to negative:
1. Not only the industrious prosper in life.
2. Only the industrious do not prosper in life.
Explanation:
1. If we choose to make the negative this way, the meaning we will convey is that industrious people prosper, but they are not the only ones. Other people can prosper too.
2. On the other hand, if we negate this way, we will completely deny the original affirmation. We will be saying that everyone else prospers in life excerpt for industrious people.
Both ways are grammatically correct, even though they convey different meanings.
<span>the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
</span>