HELPS PLS! 30 POINTS WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!!
Read the following prompt and type your response in the space provided. You will write a two-paragraph analytical response. In the first paragraph, identify and explain the following conflict: Caesar (and Caesar’s supporters) vs. the conspirators. In your second paragraph, explain how this conflict is resolved. In both of your paragraphs, make sure you cite specific examples from the play to support your ideas.

It doesn't need to be long 1-2 sentence per paragraph is fine with me. Just be sure to include specific examples from the play.

While this motif does not always include the plebeians, one salient example of this duality and contradiction occurs in Act V, Scene 1 as Cassius goes against his words to Brutus in Act I, Scene 2 when he solicits him as a conspirator in the assassination of Caesar. For, when Brutus seems reluctant to join in the conspiracy because the "eye sees not itself," Cassius urges him to create his own destiny,

Another example of duality of perspective occurs with Marc Antony, who is Act III portrays the loving Roman who is loyal to the Caesars and mocks Brutus for his dishonor. Yet, after he has been in the triumvirate with Octavius Caesar and M. Aemilius Lepidus after the death of Caesar, Antony displays shamelessly a disloyalty to the Roman people and to Lepidus in Act IV when he sends Lepidus on an errand to fetch the will of Caesar so that Antony can lessen some of the legacies promised to the plebians.  After Lepidus departs, Antony feels no guilt about his treachery as he tells Octavius,

This is a slight unmeritable man,

Meet to be sent on errands. Is it fit,

The three-fold world divided, he should stand

One of the three to share it  

Later, then, Antony contradicts himself as he accuses Brutus and Cassius of the same expediency of which he himself is guilty in ridding himself of Lepidus:

Explanation:

d. cassius cannot believe that a weakling like caesar has become so great.

the author is intending to draw attention to the plight of refugees, editorial and biography support this. both workpieces make the reader empathize with enrique as well as with the other young migrants from central america. the writer, however, is using a different approach to each text.

the editorial includes strong words to persuade readers. he is trying hard to convince readers in the us to change its refugee approach.

the biography relies on narrative techniques and figurative language which the writer uses wisely in the setting, characterization, and personification to educate readers on the topic.