What is photosynthesis ???
free pts.( ◠‿◠✿)​

What is the answer to this question

Read the excerpts from "the royal house of thebes" and "the story of a warrior queen." "we are women," she told her sister. "we must obey. we have no strength to defy the state." "choose your own part," antigone said. "i go to bury the brother i love." "you are not strong enough," ismene cried. "why, then when my strength fails," antigone answered, "i will give up." she left her sister; ismene dared not follow her. —"the royal house of thebes" again and again the romans were defeated, till it almost seemed as if the britons really would succeed in driving them out of the country. boadicea herself led the soldiers, encouraging them with her brave words. "it is better to die with honor than to live in slavery," she said. "i am a woman, but i would rather die than yield. will you follow me, men? " and of course the men followed her gladly. —"the story of a warrior queen" how are the archetypes presented in these two passages different? the first passage shows antigone as a warrior, and the second passage shows boadicea as a tragic heroine. the first passage shows antigone as a tragic heroine, and the second passage shows boadicea as a sage. the first passage shows antigone as a rebel, and the second passage shows boadicea as a warrior. the first passage shows antigone as a villain, and the second passage shows boadicea as a sage.

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