The correct answer is:
Angry
He felt sorry for Mayella, which automatically puts him above her, being unacceptable because at this time the white race was always above the black ones. Which was enough crime to convict him for.
The bystanders in the courtroom become angry when Tom Robinson admits he felt pity for Mayella Ewell in To Kill a Mockingbird. This reaction was shaped by the racist societal norms in the southern town during the 1930s.
When Tom Robinson confesses to feeling pity for Mayella Ewell in Harper Lee's classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the observers in the courtroom are overwhelmingly angry. This response is primarily due to the societal beliefs and racism present in the era and location where the story is set - a southern town in the 1930s. The implication that a black man could feel pity for a white woman was seen as crossing societal boundaries, and was therefore met with anger.
#SPJ6
b. Whom
55 Is 10 moré than my Number.
what is my number?
Muck-rake- n. A rake for scraping up muck or dung
Muckrake- v. To search out and publicly expose real or apparent misconduct of a prominent individual or business
SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1906
In Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.
In Pilgrim's Progress the Man with the Muck-rake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.
There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful. . . To assail the great and admitted evils of our political and industrial life with such crude and sweeping generalizations as to include decent men in the general condemnation means the searing of the public conscience. There results a general attitude either of cynical belief in and indifference to public corruption or else of a distrustful inability to discriminate between the good and the bad. Either attitude is fraught with untold damage to the country as a whole. The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well-nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad. There is nothing more distressing to every good patriot, to every good American, than the hard, scoffing spirit which treats the allegation of dishonesty in a public man as a cause for laughter. Such laughter is worse than the crackling of thorns under a pot, for it denotes not merely the vacant mind, but the heart in which high emotions have been choked before they could grow to fruition.
Why does Roosevelt say, in the second paragraph, "Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing"?
Answers:
To make the audience want to read Pilgrim's Progress so they can understand his message
To make a connection between the character in Pilgrim's Progress and muckraking journalists
To make journalists and politicians seem superior to the character in Pilgrim's Progress
To show the difference between the character in Pilgrim's Progress and muckraking journalists
before the excerpt, Roosevelt says, "In Pilgrim's Progress the Man with the Muck-rake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing." He infers that although the Pilgrim's Progress outlines the Man with the Muck-rake as correct, they are wrong to do so, and that the very message they carry is contradictory. He is NOT telling people to read the Pilgrim's Progress, which automatically eliminates answer 1. Although I could write a long essay about how the goal of this speech is to make regular politicians and journalists seem superior to muckrakers and the character in Pilgrim's Progress, they aren't mentioned in this excerpt, so you can eliminate answer 3 as well.
From there, it needs to be determined if the goal of this excerpt is to draw a connection between the character in Pilgrim's Progress to the muckrakers, or to show the difference. The key to determining this is in the first word of the quote, "yet". Roosevelt first acknowledges the upstanding moral character of the Pilgrim's Progress, and follows this statement by explaining how the muckrakers are not the same.
Therefor, the answer is number 4, "to show the difference between the character in Pilgrim's Progress and the muckraking journalists." My apologies for leaving you this essay to read XD
Answer:
The answer is "D."
Explanation:
Took da test