At the end of Chapter 2, Krakauer says of McCandless, Driving west out of Atlanta, he intended to invent an utterly new life for himself, one in which he would be free to wallow in unfiltered experience. To symbolize the complete severance from his previous life, he even adopted a new name. No
longer would he answer to Chris McCandless; he was now Alexander Supertramp, master of his own destiny. (23)

These are some pretty strong assertions about what McCandless was trying to do. Do you believe them at this point? Has Krakauer supported these conclusions about McCandless? What are some of the evidence he presents?

Explanation: Into the Wild

At the end of chapter 2, Krakauer says of McCandless:

At the end of chapter 2, Krakauer says of McCandless:

"Driving west of Atlanta, he intended to invent an utterly new life for himself, one in which he would be free to wallow in unfiltered experience. To symbolize the complete severance from his previous life, he even adopted a new name. No longer would he answer to Chris McCandless; he was now Alexander Supertramp, master of his own destiny (23).

Has Krakauer supported these conclusions about McCandless? What is some of the evidence he rpesents?

b)metaphor

explanation:

when reading the sentence carefully it says,"hope is a thing with feathers" it's like saying: hope is a thing like feathers

get what i'm saying? instead of using a smilie like or as they use "with"

it would be nice enough if i got .

i believe the answer is a