Answer:
The reason that Mrs. Whitaker rejects Galaad's offer of the apple of the Hesperides while accepting his other two gifts is:
The apple of Hesperides represents Mrs. Whitaker's past. She does not want to return to her youth, out of free choice, even though she is enamored of youthful exuberance.
Explanation:
Neil Gaiman's collection of short stories, entitled "Smoke and Mirrors" (1998), has a second tale christened "Chivalry." The theme of "Chivalry" is about love, growing old, and personal choices. This Neil Gaiman's Christmas special is the story of Mrs Whitaker, who finds the Holy Grail in a charity shop. When approached by a Knight for the Holy Grail, she chose, in exchange, some precious stones, instead of the apple of the Hesperides, which could have returned her youth, a youth she remembered with nostalgia.
He concludes by arguing that only war can ensure others the peace and freedom that Americans enjoy.
Answer:
A
Explanation:
If your question is...
Which statement matches the author’s viewpoint about Malala in this passage?
The author sympathizes with Malala’s fear that school might not reopen.
The author thinks Malala is foolish for thinking school might not reopen.
The author thinks Malala should not be playing while so much is at stake.
The author thinks Malala is acting too hopeful about school reopening.
your answer is A ( The author sympathizes with Malala’s fear that school might not reopen. )
HOPE IT HELPS!! AND STAY SAFE DURING THIS TIME :D
In the majority opinion, Fortas suggest that the reason for the school authorities' actions is that they were uncomfortable with such a controversial topic. According to Justice Fortas school authorities wanted to avoid controversy on the topic of Vietnam war.
Answer:
Because Dred Scott and his family were born in the United States, they are citizens with all the rights granted by the Constitution.
Explanation:
According to a different source, this is the passage that the question refers to:
<em>"It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word "citizen” is used in the Constitution of the United States. . . . . . . The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."</em>
In this passage, the opinion of the author is that Dred Scott cannot be considered an American citizen because he is the descendant of slaves. The author argues that slaves were not considered as "citizens" when the Constitution was written, and therefore, their children cannot be citizens either. However, a counterclaim to this statement would be the argument that Dred Scott and his family should be considered citizens because they were born in the United States, and therefore, deserve all the rights that citizenship grants them.
