Answer:
Theocracy's role in the story of "The Crucible" is to keep a check on the behavior of the people or pay severe consequences. It is also meant to lead people to be protective of their reputation, even at the cost of hurting or harming others. This also led to a massive hysteria.
Explanation:
Theocracy is the governing of the society based on the religious beliefs. The church (in cases of Christianity) set the rules of the governing authority that was expected to be followed by the people. Religion plays the most important role in managing the society.
"The Crucible" by Arthur Miller was partly based off the Salem Witch Trials that was famous during the late 17th century in the Massachusetts bay Colony. The accused in the witch trials were judged based on the religious beliefs of the masses, without any proper judgement procedure like modern times. The religious feelings and beliefs of the masses, including the judges, overtook the judicial system. With the government and religion acting as one body, the serving of justice fell on the hands of the religious leaders, who based their judgement based on their faith in Christianity. Thus, this theocracy played a massive role in the play. It not only ensure that the people act according to what the Christian belief is, but it also teaches the penalty that has to be paid if one disobeys it. It also led to the people to be conscious of their reputation and the need to be weary of ruining it. This government led to massive hysteria in those days, for the religious belief of the people matter more than anything else.
It seems that you have missed the necessary options to answer this question, but anyway here is the answer. Based on "The Trial" by Franz Kafka, the warders instructions to K in lines 1-8 emphasize the warders’ suspicion toward K. Hope this is the answer that you are looking for. Have a great day!
Idk the story but im going with D) helpful and inspiring
Answer:
Feldman reaches the conclusion that most people are honest without receiving an incentive by
studying a counterclaim about morality and arriving at a broad generalization.
Explanation:
A researcher can reach a conclusion that most people are honest after studying a counterclaim about morality. He can then arrive at a broad generalization.
A counterclaim is the opposite of an argument, or simply, the opposing argument. A counterclaim research is one undertaken to establish that the opposite of a research situation prevails. It is a claim made against a situation or an established position in order to rebut the claimed position.
In this instance, Glaucon had taken a position that no man could resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed or dictated. For Feldman to contradict this claim, with a conclusion that 87% of the time, a man could resist the temptation of evil even if he knew his acts could not be witnessed or dictated because he had become invisible, it means that he had researched the counterclaim.
“The dog curled up in bed”
- The subject is “The dog” since the statement is made about it.
- The predicate is "curled up in bed" since it completes what is said about the subject by using a verb for that purpose.
