The sight was strange because it was impossible to harm Grendel, but at the same time the sight was wonderful because Grendel's death meant the people would have peace.
Although you haven't shown the text this question refers to, we can see from the context that it refers to "Beowulf."
"Beowulf" is the epic that tells the story of how the Anglo-Saxon hero, Beowulf, defeated the terrifying monster, Grendel. With the reading of this epic, we can say that:
- Grendel was a terrible and bloodthirsty monster.
- He was immune to any kind of weapon and his skin was impossible to cut.
- This means that no one is able to defeat him or even hurt him.
- But Beowulf, in addition to being strong and very strategic, managed to cut off Grendel's head.
As Grendel was impossible to harm, the sight of his severed head was very strange, as it seemed impossible to happen, but it was a wonderful thing, as the people would be free from his attacks and they would have peace.
You can find more information at the link below:
brainly.com/question/4062816?referrer=searchResults
Here is the answer that would best complete the given statement above. <span>The author of “Nolan Bushnell” states that “It’s very clear that game playing grows dendrites. So people are smarter. The brain is something that if you exercise it you can be smarter. It turns out that games are that exercise.” because WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME, THIS STIMULATES THE BRAIN EVERY TIME YOU THINK OF ANY STRATEGIES OR TECHNIQUES IN ORDER TO PASS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF THE GAME. Thinking and coming up of a strategy needs a lot of concentration and focus. Hope this answer helps. </span>
" At four he decided to get it over with and started walking to Sandra's house, trudging slowly, as if he were waist-deep in water. " is the correct answer.
Hello there!
The statement that compares Steve's journal and screenplay more correctly is: The journal includes Steve writing about himself in the first person and in the screenplay, Steve includes writing in the third person.
In his journal he is more explicit with his ideas, there are no longer fears or crimes, but in his screenplay, he shares the need of attention that in his real-life is missing.
Something is plagiarism if one takes material from another source and uses it without pointing toward that source, thus making it appear that it is originally written.
1. No, this is not plagiarism since she herself is the original writer, thus she is not stealing content from anybody else.<span>
2. According to Casey Berry of Sciences Ltd., "Only 6% of students wash their hands after class." This first choice is not plagiarism, since the student has cited the researcher Casey Berry, and has enclosed the directly copied statement in quotation marks. In contrast, the second choice mentions "a recent study" without any direct mention of who did the study, and it copies the conclusion verbatim without using quotation marks.
3. This is not plagiarism, since she places a hyperlink to the source, thus acknowledging that what she has written is not her own original material. However, this is considered bad practice, to simply link to a source without describing what it has done or which parts specifically you have taken from it. You would not probably be sued in court for plagiarism, but it is still advisable to describe what the source has done.
4. No, this is not plagiarism. He has used quotation marks for direct quotes. The paraphrased information does not need quotation marks. Hyperlinks and attributions have been provided for each, so there are no issues with this kind of writing.
5. Yes, this is plagiarism. The BlogMutt writer got information from another post (which may or may not have been original material, we do not know), and did not attribute that post. Furthermore, this write-up is for a customer, not merely for discussion in forums, so pretending that the information on the post is his own is not only plagiarism, but it is also business dishonesty as he is stealing someone's work and selling it to a customer as his own.</span>
