George Bergeron's character is, literally, extremely intelligent, strong, and capable. We know this because of the number of handicaps he is forced to wear by the government. His weights, for example, are so tiring that his wife suggests he risk removing them even thought the consequences are severe for doing so.
Because of his handicaps, George is a character who is incapable of changing, reacting to a situation, or even remembering what he his doing and he is such a rule-follower that he won't use his intelligence or strength to go against the government.
A reader can see that the handicaps put on George are a metaphor for the burdens that the majority of the population of America are encumbered by in real life. While most people don't have pounds of bird-shot strapped to their necks, it is clear that people ARE burdened by great amounts of debt, jobs that pay little, stresses like large families, consumerism, etc that hold them back from participating fully in life. The "handicaps'' of the story are literally meant to show how much weight we are putting on the wrong things in our lives.
Vonnegut uses characters like George to demonstrate how little people are actually living. They are flat, unfeeling, unemotional, and unable to communicate, resist, or change. It is obvious that George SHOULD react to seeing his son's violent death broadcast on national television, but he is completely incapable of doing so because of the handicaps attached to him. The lack of character development, coupled with the excellent description of George's strengths due to his handicaps is what allows a reader to understand that the character is meant to be criticized. Readers are meant to ask themselves, how could he not react? How could he not remember? Why won't he question the ideals of the government? Why won't he risk himself for something that could save his son?
Answer:
(4) Some people believe that the government does not have the right to force people to be safe, and that these laws are unfair.
Explanation:
Counter argument is a statement which opposes writer's main argument for any purpose. However when a writer opposes one's own argument, it is usually for the purpose of including all point of views and aspects of the problem. In most of such cases the author negates (presents counter of counter argument) to finally establish one's original argument.
In this passage, the author is trying to establish the importance of making seat belts mandatory by law in each state of the United States. However in line 4, he presents some other people's point of view on this issue. And in line 5, restates his/her original argument. The overall effect, the author is trying to bring about in the audience by including the counter argument is that, he/she has already considered the counter argument as well.
The answers are:
-“The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally.”
-“All the windfalls were to be collected . . . for the use of the pigs.”
-“All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon.”
In the first statement, the word “animals” refers to the population, the mass, who naively assumes they shall be treated equally. In the other two statements, the pigs are the animals chosen to represent the leaders who, in turn, are sure to deserve more and better than the rest of the population.
The critique we can take from this work, Animal Farm, is the fact that the real power comes – or should come - from the mass, the population. Leaders are chosen – by the population - not to be treated differently or specially, but to serve the interests of everyone.
In Animal Farm, the society described using animals is a satire of communism in the Soviet Union. Communism claims to work for the people, to guarantee equality, also accusing Capitalism of only promoting inequality. The author, George Orwell, criticizes how communist leaders easily walk away from that ideal when they find themselves superior and more deserving than the rest of the country.
The author’s use of the word
“sentenced” in the poem “They Shot Wook Kim” is like this: “Sentenced by the
absence of laughter and love,” Which probably means:
<span>It conveys both the swiftness
and finality of his murder. It conveys the
deliberation and inevitability of his murder. </span>
In "The Revolt of Mother" Freeman described women's role in the 19th century, when women were the only ones responsible for the household chores and for raising the children. In fact, these were the only things they were supposed to be occupied with as they wouldn't go to school like boys nor would they find a job. Freeman also describes the position of the mother in the family, where she couldn't participate in decision-making which concerned the house and the family including her. All important decisions were taken by the husband and even if the wife disagreed she couldn't do anything about it.
Today, in the Western world, women have gained the right to education and to equal opportunities in employment. Their role in the family has also changed as today the father participates in the household chores as well and he is also responsible for bringing up the children. Nowadays, the women can take important decisions concerning their lives and their families.
However, there some remnants from that era that are still with us today. For example, even if women have gained the right to vote there are still less women in the Parliaments than men. In addition to this, there are plenty of jobs in which they prefer to hire men or where women and men are not equally paid. Last but not least, many people still believe that women should have a different role in the family than men.
In conclusion, although the position of women has improved a lot since the era of Freeman, there are still many issues to be resolved.
