From the 1750s on, sugar transformed how Europeans ate. Chefs who served the wealthy began to divide meals up. Where sugar had previously been used either as a decoration (as in the wedding feast) or as a spice to flavor all courses, now it was removed from recipes for meat, fish, and vegetables and given its own place—in desserts. Dessert as the extremely sweet end to the meal was invented because so much sugar was available. But the wealthy were not the only ones whose meals were changing. Sugar became a food, a necessity, and the foundation of the diet for England's poorest workers.
It indicates that the addition of sugar was a significant change to Europeans' diets.
Answer: Option D.
<u>Explanation:</u>
In the paragraph that has been shown above, the way the Europeans ate in the 1750s and the change in their way of eating has been talked about. It shows that there has been addition of sugar in their diet.
Earlier sugar was only used as a way of decoration or as a spice to flavor up all the courses. But later the intake of sugar increased a lot in the diet of the Europeans and it became a necessity, it became a food.
I believe you are referring to this text:
<span>In the eighteenth century Josiah Wedgwood had made some of the most expensive stoneware ceramics – in jasper and basalt – in Britain, but this tea set shows that by the 1840s, when Wedgwood produced it, the company was aiming at a much wider market. This is quite clearly mid-range pottery, simple earthenware of a sort that many quite modest British households were then able to afford. But the owners of this particular set must have had serious social aspirations, because all three pieces have been decorated with a drape of lacy hallmarked silver.
From the text, the descriptive detail that best aids the reader to visualize the central topic which is a specific early Victorian tea set is "</span><span>some of the most expensive stoneware</span>".
<span>Both use figurative language.</span>
Answer:
Brutus creates closure, whereas Antony stimulates anger.
Explanation:
The two monologues in question are from Act III scene ii of the play "The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar" by William Shakespeare. The two monologues are from the scene where Brutus had addressed the people after the death of Caesar and Antony had also came to view the body. He then addressed the people right after the exit of Brutus.
The last remarks of the two monologues are-
Brutus remarks that he wants the people to pay their respects to Caesar and told the, that Antony will address the people. After giving his leave, he exit and from there Antony began his speech.
Whereas, Antony's speech details the goodness and wholehearted sacrifice of Caesar for his people. The "over ambitious" nature that Brutus accused Caesar of, was what led him to be a great leader for his whole acts and aims was for the good of his people. He even mentioned that Caesar had written in his will that the people of Rome are to be his inheritors.
Thus, the two monologues that the two leaders gave after the death of Caesar are quite different in that, Brutus' monologue creates closure for everyone, not only himself. He accepts the death of Caesar and implores the people to do so too. But Antony's monologue rather stimulates anger in the people.
Modern monsters can hide within normal society; historical monsters lived outside of society.
