Which sentence in the adapted excerpt from G. K. Chesterton's "The Fallacy of Success" contains the central idea of the essay? On every bookstall, in every magazine, you may find works telling people how to succeed. They are books showing men how to succeed in everything; they are written by men who cannot even succeed in writing books. To begin with, of course, there is no such thing as Success. Or, if you like to put it so, there is nothing that is not successful. That a thing is successful merely means that it is; a millionaire is successful in being a millionaire and a donkey in being a donkey. Any live man has succeeded in living. But, passing over the bad logic and bad philosophy in the phrase, we may take it, as these writers do, in the ordinary sense of success in obtaining money or worldly position. These writers profess to tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his trade or speculation—how, if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; how, if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. They profess to show him how, if he is a grocer, he may become a sporting yachtsman; how, if he is a tenth-rate journalist, he may become a peer; and how, if he is a German, he may become an Anglo-Saxon. This is a definite and business-like proposal, and I really think that the people who buy these books (if any people do buy them) have a moral, if not a legal, right to ask for their money back. Nobody would dare to publish a book about electricity which literally told one nothing about electricity; no one would dare to publish an article on botany which showed that the writer did not know which end of a plant grew in the earth. Yet our modern world is full of books about Success and successful people which literally contain no kind of idea, and scarcely any kind of verbal sense.

hello! i am thinking the answer is d. to convince parliament to go to war against nazi germany

sorry if i am wrong

that's a lot of reading foo

explanation:

explanation:

the intellectual community is a place like a university where people with high marks, or original thought or an outstanding interest in something gather. they take classes together. they discuss things. they argue sometimes, and not always in a friendly way. but if they argue, it is because they are passionate about something, and there is nothing the matter with that.

lately i've been hearing rumors that it is not the way it was when i went to school. the one thing all schools used to have was free speech. the 1st amendment rights were sacred. now i'm hearing they are not. students can be reported and disciplined for giving an off the wall opinion.

that is shameful.

intellectual ideas are meant to be discussed. they are meant to be chewed up and worked on. that is the primary responsibility of every intellectual community. if that is not the way it is, then that is not a school to go to.

social media, in my opinion, and this is just an opinion. i wouldn't take it too seriously, complicates everything to do with human communication. you can want to share things and others feel they have the right to be very critical or sarcastic or mean about what you share. lack of respect is an immeasurable intolerable condition and social media abounds with that sort of thing.

one of the things i really like about is how careful people are because they must have some idea that the mods are exactly what the word says they are. they police this board very well, and what is so remarkable about them is that they are no older than the average grade 12 student.

my hat goes off to them (which means i respect them quite a bit).

because most jews were in the concentration camps and dying horrible deaths while anne could be with her family in a warm place with shelter, food, water, and a place to sleep.