Of all the characters highlighted in the works included in this unit, which one did you relate to or identify with the most in terms of his or her struggles and conflicts? why? what was it about this character that made him or her affect you as he or she did? be sure to point to specific examples from the work to support your response.

George Orwell from Shooting An Elephant

Explanation:

I like Orwell not because he shot the elephant after all, but because I related to his struggle, there are lots of times in life where I try to do the right thing but feel peer pressured to do the other, and I end up doing the other. One example that spoke to me during the text was the general scene of having a huge crowd behind him silently encouraging him to kill the now peaceful elephant in front of him, reminding me of lots of moments in my life where I am at a crossroads of right or wrong, do the right thing and face judgement by my peers, or do the wrong thing and be loved by everyone around me but still living with the guilt of what I've done.

(Side note: I know what youre talking about because I'm taking the same test, but for future reference include context and resources to your questions, and don't give a bad rating to other people asking for context and resources to your question )

faulty parallelism is a grammar construction where there is no balance in the parts of a sentence they have a similar meaning but the grammar structure is not equivalent.

the correct version of this faulty parallelism in the sentence is:

jefferson wrote the declaration of independence, and he was the nation's third president.

the problem with the first version is that the sentence:

"jefferson was both the writer of the declaration of independence"

presents jefferson as both a subject and an agent for the verb "write" because if he was "the writer" then the declaration of independence was written by him, besides that fact, the sentence presents a dependent clause.

while the second sentence:

he was the nation's third president.

presents a basic subject+verb+object structure

so, to give a proper balance to the structure, or better said, to give a parallel structure, we must write a basic s+v+o structure in both sentences:

jefferson wrote the declaration of independence, and he was the nation third president.

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this