Which two parts of this excerpt from leo tolstoy's the death of ivan ilyich suggest that doctors, like lawyers, are part of the superficial middle-class world of nineteenth century russia?

he went. everything took place as he had expectbnd as it always does. there was the usual waiting and the important air assumed by the doctor, with which he was so familiar (resembling that which he himself assumed in court), and the sounding and listening, and the questions which called for answers that were foregone conclusions and were evidently unnecessary, and the look of importance which implied that "if only you put yourself in our hands we will arrange everything—we know indubitably how it has to be done, always in the same way for everybody alike." it was all just as it was in the law courts. the doctor put on just the same air towards him as he himself put on towards an accused person.

the doctor said that so-and-so indicated that there was so- and-so inside the patient, but if the investigation of so-and-so did not confirm this, then he must assume that and that. if he assumed that and that, so on. to ivan ilyich only one question was important: was his case serious or not? but the doctor ignored that inappropriate question. from his point of view it was not the one under consideration, the real question was to decide between a floating kidney, chronic catarrh, or appendicitis. it was not a question the doctor solved brilliantly, as it seemed to ivan ilyich, in favour of the appendix, with the reservation that should an examination of the urine give fresh indications the matter would be reconsidered. all this was just what ivan ilyich had himself brilliantly accomplished a thousand times in dealing with men on trial. the doctor summed up just as brilliantly, looking over his spectacles triumphantly and even gaily at the accused. from the doctor's summing up ivan ilyich concluded that things were bad, but that for the doctor, and perhaps for everybody else, it was a matter of indifference, though for him it was bad. and this conclusion struck him painfully, arousing in him a great feeling of pity for himself and of bitterness towards the doctor's indifference to a matter of such importance.

The Death of Ivan Ilyich was published by Leo Tolstoy in 1886. Two main parts from the excerpt may be noted:

"There was the usual waiting and the important air assumed by the doctor, with which he was so familiar (resembling that which he himself assumed in court), and the sounding and listening, and the questions which called for answers that were foregone conclusions and were evidently unnecessary, and the look of importance."

This first statement implies that the doctor assumed "the important air" which is similar to the way he assumed as a lawyer, making the connection.

" It was all just as it was in the law courts. The doctor put on just the same air towards him as he himself put on towards an accused person."

Once again he acknowledges that both lawyers and doctors position themselves as more important than the people they are supposed to help, but as in Ivan's court experience he is elevated, in the doctor he is irrelevant, such as the doctor would be in court.

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.

idk tbh because i'm just getting points.