In my opinion, the correct answer is D: <span>Both the parallel structure in the excerpt of "An Irish Airman Foresees His Own Death" and the repetition in the excerpt from "Do not go gentle into that good night" emphasize the inevitability of death.
The main point of both poems is that death is inevitable. However, in Yates' poem, the airman willingly faces death, because of an inner impulse that he finds hard to describe. In this excerpt, he tells us that he is more or less indifferent toward those who are below, on Earth. He is interested in death itself, as a dark phenomenon that haunts him. On the other hand, in Thomas' poem, the inevitability of death is human tragic destiny. We should cling to life as best we can precisely because death is inevitable. These two poems have the same topic, but opposite directions of thought: Yates' speaker goes to meet death, embracing it, whereas Thomas' speaker encourages his dying father to try and postpone death, if possible.</span>
The answer to this question ➡ C
<span>Satire is a genre of
literature in which individuals, corporation, government or society are ridiculed
in purpose of constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to
both particular and wider issues in society in order to correct or shape
opinions and behavior. But, satire can’t be effective in shaping behavior or
opinions if the audience is always in on the joke and never being targeted. The
effectiveness of satiric work is mirrored in sole comprehension of the targeted
group of individuals that they are wrong, and should correct their opinions and
behavior. Many satiric writers believe that satires should be medicine
disguised as candy, so it would be easier for targeted group to accept it. If
only non-targeted audience comprehend the joke (main idea of satiric work), the
satire would not be effective as they agree with author’s criticism and there
is no need for them to correct their behavior nor their opinions.</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.
