I'm writing an essay on Freud's theory of the unconscious mind, give me any tips, pointers, any sort of criticism on how I can improve my introduction. Freud’s Theory and the Sniper

Tick, tick, tick, tock. Tick tick tick-BANG The children scream. Their teacher is gone. And so is half her face. The flesh and bone are exposed, the skin sloughing off at the edges. Her jaw is shattered. Blood splatters all over as more shots ring out. The room is quiet. Tears puddle at the feet of the intruder. One last shot rings out as the screen cuts to black.

Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind is one that intrigues many. Composed of three main instincts, they play a role in our everyday decisions and reactions. One has been what has guided all out of infancy and has been with since. The other restrains the first and contradicts the third. The third keeps both in check. The first is Id. They represent wants like that of a child. They will get it regardless of the conditions.

Ego is the second. They keep the child at bay with logic, explaining to them why they cannot obtain something. The third is the child’s compassion. Young as they are, they’re brimming with kindness. They tell apart wrong from right and Ego explains how and why.

In the case of O'Flaherty's soldier, it’s drastically different. He is not simply a soldier, but a warrior of the shadows. One swift pull of the trigger, and down the bodies drop. And no remorse drags at the soul who aimed and fired. That is until he’s met his match. The behavior mentioned by Freud could be applied to the sniper through his thoughts, feelings, and actions in the story by O'Flaherty.

Any bs about something else to get points gets you reported.

the answer is   c the cold war

"character is what you are in the dark." dwight lyman moody, in this very witty quotation of his, states we act and think differently when we are "in the dark", that is, when the spotlight is not on us and everyone can see us and consequently judge us. when reading, we tend to be sympathetic to some characters and their dilemmas. by being so, we are saying to ourselves that we agree with those characters' acts and choices, even if they are morally questionable if we have common sense in mind. dwight lyman moody's quotation applies very well to "crime and punishment", by   19th century russian writer fiodor dostoyevsky. raskolnikov, the main character, a former law student who spends his days reflecting upon life and its misery, draws a fatal conclusion: mankind is divided in two main categories: ordinary and extraordinary people. the first are the ones who lead a run-of-the-mill existence and are full of imperfections; the latter are the ones who are spiritually superior, the ones who always know better, and have the right to judge the ordinary ones, as well as eliminate them if for common good. raskolnikov considers himself as belonging to the extraordinary category and decides to kill an old lady who is a money lender and in whose house he rents a small room. raskolnikov compares himself to napoleon, who had the undeniable right to execute tons of people during the war in order to save his nation. of course what the main character decides to do is a horrendous crime, but as readers we feel it is the right thing for him to do, since the victim is a mean old woman who only thinks about money and keeps humiliating her younger sister. what one experiences is a mixture of sympathy and empathy for the character, even though he decides to commit homicide, which is not at all accepted or tolerated by civilized citizens. however, since readers are "in the dark", they allow themselves to feel in ways they would probably never dare to confess to anyone, no matter how nasty or vicious a character can be. after all, they are just reading and doing no harm. in other words, readers are in the dark and can be who they are without being judged.