In the story “The Bet”, Do you believe there is such a thing as “internal freedom?” (This is the kind of freedom that the lawyer comes to know as he rises about his circumstances, though he is imprisoned.” Think of people in the news who have been imprisoned for their beliefs. In your opinion, are they “freer” than their jailers? If so, how?

The expected response to this opinion-based question is:

1. Yes, I believe there is such a thing as "internal freedom."

2. In my opinion, those who have been imprisoned for upholding their beliefs are "freer" than their jailers on the basis of internal freedom, despite their external restraints.

3. I believe they are freer than their jailers because they are not constrained by feelings of shame or fear of consequences that chain many of us back, including the jailers. Expressing your beliefs despite the consequences shows that you have freed yourself from these constraints, choosing to do what you believe is right. It's doubtful that the jailers (as leaders of an institution that contributes to internal/external restraint) have achieved a similar amount of internal freedom.

Explanation:

Keep in mind that the response to this question is PERSONAL -- it's doubtful that there is a technically incorrect answer to the question as long as you back up your opinion. However, based on the lesson of "The Bet," this is an acceptable, common response.

what are the lines. come on!

impartial means: treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just.

i would say that impartial is agreeing with something, because impartial means to treat your rivals, arguments, and reasoning equally and fair. so if you rival says something, agreeing on it means you did the impartial.