A foil is the near complete opposite of the main character (whichever character they want you to find a foil for).
Rainsford and Whitney were good hunting friends with numerous similar interests. They could not be foils because of how close in similarity they were. Even when they disagreed on how animals felt about being hunted, Whitney seemed open to and intrigued by Rainsford's points and way of thinking.
Ivan is a near irrelevant character, being a mere Cossack who follows whatever General Zaroff says. He is mindless and has almost zero traits to even compare to Rainsford, let alone any traits aside from a mindless follower to begin with.
The answer would be General Zaroff. This is almost like the cliche protagonist vs antagonist foil. Both of them are hunters, but different kinds. Zaroff got bored with animals and wanted to hunt human people instead, whereas Rainsford had enjoyed the thrill of an animal hunt and thinks that the hunting of people is murder. Zaroff is more heartless and cold, a killer, if you will. Rainsford seems to think highly of actual people, and had no interest in playing Zaroff's game.
A complex sentece is a sentence which contains an independent clause and at least one dependent clause. So, the correct answer is letter D.
Explanation:
Independent clause: Animal test is cruel.
- Animal test: subject
- is: verb
Depedent clause: and it should be stopped imeddiately.
- Coordinate conjunction: and
- subject: it
- modal verb: should
- verb: be stopped
- adverb: immediately
When, in 1759, Voltaire published his Candide: Ou, L’Optimisme (Candide: Or, All for the Best, 1759), Michel-Guillaume Jean de Crèvecur was already planning to cultivate his garden hewn out of the Pennsylvania frontier. Like Voltaire’s naïve hero, Crèvecur had seen too much of the horrors of the civilized world and was more than ready to retire to his bucolic paradise, where for nineteen years he lived in peace and happiness until the civilized world intruded on him and his family with the outbreak of the American Revolution. The twelve essays that make up his Letters from an American Farmer are, ostensibly at least, the product of a hand unfamiliar with the pen. The opening letter presents the central theme quite clearly: The decadence of European civilization makes the American frontier one of the great hopes for a regeneration of humanity. Crèvecur wonders why people travel to Italy to “amuse themselves in viewing the ruins of temples . . . . half-ruined amphitheatres and the putrid fevers of the Campania must fill the mind with most melancholy reflections.” By contrast, Crèvecur delights in the humble rudiments of societies spreading everywhere in the colonies, people converting large forests into pleasing fields and creating thirteen provinces of easy subsistence and political harmony. He has his interlocutor say of him, “Your mind is . . . a Tabula rasa where spontaneous and strong impressions are delineated with felicity.” Similarly, he sees the American continent as a clean slate on which people can inscribe a new society and the good life. It may be said that Crèvecur is a Lockean gone romantic, but retaining just enough practical good sense to see that reality is not rosy. The book is the crude, occasionally eloquent, testimony of a man trying desperately to convince himself and his readers that it is possible to live the idealized life advocated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. With a becoming modesty, appropriate to a man who learned English at age sixteen, Crèvecur begins with a confession of his literary inadequacy and the announcement of his decision simply to write down what he would say. His style, however, is not smoothly colloquial. Except in a few passages in which conviction generates enthusiasm, one senses the strain of the unlettered man writing with feeling but not cunning. Thus in these reasons, Enthusiastic as this description is, it is not as extravagant as it might seem. He describes Colonial America as a "a new continent; a modern society ", "united by the silken bands of mild government " where eveyone abides by the law " without dreading their power, because they -Americans- are equitable". To his mind, America is a place where "the rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe" (Letter III) In contrast, Europe seems to him a land "of great lords who possess everything, and of a herd of people who have nothing" where its citizens "withered, and were mowed down by want, hunger, and war" as well as exposed to "nothing but the frowns of the rich, the severity of the laws, with jails and punishments"(Letter III). He lightheartedly embraces the nickname "farmer of feelings" his admired English correspondant gives him (letter II) as he explains with emotional rhethoric how it feels living in America; a place where "individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world"(letter III)
hope this helps
The passive voice formed by Subject + verb to be+Past Participle. The object in the active voice becomes the subject of the passive voice and the subject of the active voice is either the object in the passive voice or is not mentioned.
The passive voice is used when we don't know the performer of the action. Example: “The house was built in 1884” in this case we don't know who built the house.
The passive voice is used when the focus is on the receiver of the action. Example: “Five people were killed in a car accident”, in this case the focus is on “five people”
The passive voice is used when the focus is on the action. Example: “The car was stolen”, in this case the emphasis is on the fact that the car was stolen and not on who stole it.
So the three options that apply to the uses of the passive voice are:
when the performer of the action is unknown
when you want to emphasize the action directly
when you want to emphasize the receiver of the action
