Do you think Montresor is justified by killing Fortunato at the end of the story? Do you think that humans/characters are ever justified when they decide to take things into their own hands? (tell-tale heart)

Select the correct text in the passage. which two lines in this excerpt from shakespeare's romeo and juliet foreshadow the tragic fate of romeo and juliet? friar laurence: so smile the heavens upon this holy act, that after hours with sorrow chide us not! romeo: amen, amen! but come what sorrow can, it cannot countervail the exchange of joy that one short minute gives me in her sight: do thou but close our hands with holy words, then love-devouring death do what he dare; it is enough i may but call her mine. friar laurence: these violent delights have violent ends and in their triumph die, like fire and powder, which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey is loathsome in his own deliciousness and in the taste confounds the appetite: therefore love moderately; long love doth so; too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.

Time is not always change. time can also mean continuity, and it can mean keeping acknowledged truths in mind despite differences in circumstances.there is no better example of this in things fall apart than the retellings of the proverb about the bird named eneke, the language in both retellings is almost identical despite the length of time that has passed between their repetitions. in comparing the usages of the same proverb, achebe allows his readers to note the similarities and differences between the situations, and he them understand how this story can be applied to their own lives.

Read the passage from animal farm. as clover looked down the hillside her eyes filled with tears. if she could have spoken her thoughts, it would have been to say that this was not what they had aimed at when they had set themselves years ago to work for the overthrow of the human race. these scenes of terror and slaughter were not what they had looked forward to on that night when old major first stirred them to rebellion. if she herself had had any picture of the future, it had been of a society of animals set free from hunger and the whip, all equal, each working according to his capacity, the strong protecting the weak, as she had protected the lost brood of ducklings with her foreleg on the night of major's speech. instead—she did not know why—they had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. there was no thought of rebellion or disobedience in her mind. she knew that, even as things were, they were far better off than they had been in the days of jones, and that before all else it was needful to prevent the return of the human beings. whatever happened she would remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders that were given to her, and accept the leadership of napoleon. but still, it was not for this that she and all the other animals had hoped and toiled. it was not for this that they had built the windmill and faced the bullets of jones's gun. such were her thoughts, though she lacked the words to express them. what was most likely orwell’s purpose for writing this passage? to show that clover is more sensitive to violence than the others to remind readers of major's speech and the original rebellion to present napoleon as a cruel leader unworthy of the animals’ support to represent misled followers and their dashed hopes for better lives