Answer:
action because someone is doing it, someone is avoiding.
Explanation:
SHOULD EVERYONE IN THE WORLD SPEAK ENGLISH?
My answer is "Yes". Eventhough language is one of the most valuable aspects of any culture, the mastery of a second language opens new opportunities for an individual in different areas such as art, culture, technical, scientific, or for traveling and tourism purposes.
The idea is not that the entire world speaks one and unique language as English, because each people have their own origins and customs that are highlighted and transmitted precisely by native language.
Language helps uniting societies, giving them unique and proper characteristics that determine the final identity of people. Language also helps creating strong ties in society such as religion aspects, family backgrounds, principles and behavior rules for people who share it.
This is why, for example, we see that in countries with a high volume of immigrants they create like a big circle in which they feel united and protected themselves and it's because of the language they share.
On the other hand, the fact that everyone should speak English as a second language is important because this gives the individual a double opportunity for working and getting involved in the society where he/she performs but at the same time keep the roots of his/her environment or culture.
B. The auditorium had been remodeled, and it now contains-new seats and a new curtain
C. Actors showed up on time and they brought: their scripts.
D. Play rehearsals started exactly at 3:45.
Answer: B
Explanation:
To my understanding I think it is B, because there is a conjunction connecting them, which seems to be the only sentence that has it.
tomorrow, or will you forget it immediately? Explain.
Answer: I will be thinking about it
Explanation:
It depends on a person but if the post is so poignant and touching it surely will affect me and I will be thinking about that tomorrow.
There are many poignant blog posts on the internet now and many of them are not true. If I see that the post isn't true I will not think about that later because I won't feel sad because that type of story is not impressive to me. If the story is getting true feelings out of it I will surely think about it more.
By S. E. Forman
1911
THE MATCH
There never was a time when the world was without fire, but there was a time when men did not know how to kindle fire; and after they learned how to kindle one, it was a long, long time before they learned how to kindle one easily. In these days we can kindle a fire without any trouble, because we can easily get a match; but we must remember that the match is one of the most wonderful things in the world, and that it took men thousands of years to learn how to make one. Let us learn the history of this familiar little object, the match.
Fire was first given to man by nature itself. When a forest is set on fire by cinders from a neighboring volcano, or when a tree is set ablaze by a thunderbolt, we may say that nature strikes a match. In the early history of the world, nature had to kindle all the fires, for man by his own effort was unable to produce a spark. The first method, then, of getting fire for use was to light sticks of wood at a flame kindled by nature—by a volcano, perhaps, or by a stroke of lightning. These firebrands were carried to the home and used in kindling the fires there. The fire secured in this way was carefully guarded and was kept burning as long as possible. But the flame, however faithfully watched, would sometimes be extinguished. A sudden gust of wind or a sudden shower would put it out. Then a new firebrand would have to be secured, and this often meant a long journey and a deal of trouble.
In 1827, John Walker, a druggist in a small English town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. The druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. It is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. Although Walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. In a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. The match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. It would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. This was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar.
Why does the author include details about the difficulty of getting fire before matches?
A.) By showing the importance of matches today
B.) By providing a history of how matches developed
C.) By showing how nature created fire
D.) By providing the history of John Walker’s work
I am saying A.) By showing the importance of matches today. Because if it didn't include the parts about how fire was so hard to get before matches then matches wouldn't seem as important.
They took on the British Empire, the greatest military force at the time, and defied a king
The signing was a commitment to liberty that few colonists lived up to.
The idea that government's job was to protect this equality and these rights was also revolutionary
Answer: Samuel Adams (September 27 [O.S. September 16] 1722 – October 2, 1803) was an American statesman, political philosopher, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a politician in colonial Massachusetts, a leader of the movement that became the American Revolution, and one of the architects of the principles of American republicanism that shaped the political culture of the United States. He was a second cousin to his fellow Founding Father, President John Adams.
Explanation: