Answer:
A. "And the novel needs to keep changing if it is to remain novel."
Explanation:
In the article, Hamid seems to prefer TV viewing over reading lengthy novels, this is evident when he said <em>"I now watch a lot of TV.."</em> He goes further to say <em>"Films could be well written, but they were smaller than novels. TV was big, but its writing was clunky..this represents a crisis for the novel."</em>
Then comes Hamid's advice to novelists,<em> "And the novel needs to keep changing if it is to remain novel."</em>
Answer:
The answer is B.
Explanation:
He used these words to intensify the meanings.
Answer:
It illustrates internal dialogue.
Explanation:
In graphic novels, the thought bubble is used to show internal dialogue. The term that is more widely used is <em>internal monologue</em>. In literature, a dialogue is a conversation between two or more characters, and a monologue is a speech presented by one character in order to show their thoughts. When those thoughts remain inside a character's head, we have an internal monologue/dialogue. In graphic novels, we can get insight into those thoughts thanks to thought bubbles.
Answer:
Many of his family members passed away, and he saw his future slipping away, but he would not let it.
Explanation:
In the next lyrics he says how he is going to accomplish much more and not throw away his shot.
btw the musical ends with hamilton throwing away his shot and burr not waiting for it like what the heck lol
Answer: Colin's evidence is not relevant to his claim<u> because it is about flying drones being a sport, not about privacy issues.</u>
Explanation: Colin's evidence is not related to his main claim, that is to say the assertion that drones do not invade people's privacy<u>. Instead of focusing on providing evidence that supports the idea that drones do not affect people's privacy negatively, Colin offers evidence related to the thought that flying drones is a sport </u>by stating that coordination and technical skills are necessary to fly drones. Therefore, it can be said that his argument lacks strength because it has not been properly supported.
