1) the correct answer is B True love is inexplicable and boundless.
2) the correct answer is C “I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where” (Line 9).
3) the correct answer is A urgent and passionate.
4) At the beginning of the poem, he says why he does not love her. He doesn't love her as if she was a salt-rose, topaz, or carnation, but he loves her as if she was a plant that does not bloom. This means that he does not love her superficially, but he loves her deeply for who she is on the inside.
Flowers are beautiful things that everyone admires, but no one would admire a flower that doesn’t bloom because they could not see the beauty that it contains.
I think the point of the relation of the quote to Atwood's poem is that what we see (or presume) and what we experience can be two totally different things. The poem talks about the striking differences between Canada as tourists see it and Canada as the speaker sees it through her own experience. For the tourists, <span>Saskatchewan is just another lake with "convenient" places to pose and take photos. For her, it is a very personal place of memories and meanings. In relation to the quote, we need to really meet our neighbors, instead of just believing the superficial images. We can really meet them through literature. By doing that, we will meet ourselves too, and realize the deep connection that binds us to other, different people and cultures.</span>
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.
Answer:
The author develops his claim by including the example of his childhood by telling how important it is switch the communication style while in different cultural settings.
Explanation:
"Learning How To Code-Switch: Humbling, But Necessary
" is an article written by Eric Deggans. The article talks about the importance of switching communication style while being in different cultural settings.
<u>In this article, the author includes his childhood experience when he would include the word 'guys' while speaking with his poor and black neighborhood. For them the word 'guys' was a white men word, thus the author was ridiculed for making use of that word in his black neighborhood. </u>
<u>By including this example of his childhood, the author is trying to develop a claim of how important it is switch the codes while being in different cultural settings. And to learn how to switch the codes.</u>
