( Ethan Frome novel) Which of the following is NOT an example of FORESHADOWING in Chapters 1-1|?*
a. "The pitch of the Corbury road, below lawyer Varnum's spruces, was the
favourite coasting-ground of Starkfield"
b. "He had taken to the girl from the first day, when he had driven over the the Flats
to meet her, and she had smiled and waved to him from the train..."
c. "His wife had never shown any jealousy of Mattie, but of late she had grumbled
increasingly over the house-work and found oblique ways of attracting attention to
the girl's inefficiency."
d. "Zeena always went to bed as soon as she had had her supper, and the
shutterless windows of the house were dark."

The most likely reason king uses allusions in this part of his speech is to

How are the two arguments made in the passages different? a. the first passage claims that pets in class will children with health problems; the second passage says pets will make some health problems worse. b. the first passage claims that students’ nervousness will decrease around pets; the second says that students’ nervousness will increase around pets. c. the first passage claims that pets will make the teacher’s work easier by keeping students busy; the second passage says pets will make the teacher’s work harder. d. the first passage claims that pets in school will be good for kids’ mental health; the second passage says pets will be bad for kids’ mental health.

In a debate focused specifically on the topic of whether new laws are needed to prevent distracted driving, the following argument is made. which type of special appeal does it demonstrate? “my opponent is correct—distracted driving is very dangerous. many activities—texting, talking on the phone, looking at maps, eating breakfast—all of these contribute to accidents. yes, we have statistics to support that. however, my opponent is totally ignoring the role that improper and inconsistent maintenance of your vehicle can also have in causing accidents! ” a. false analogy b. red herring c. bandwagon d. fallacy of argument from ignorance