Why do the townspeople agree to take part in the lottery and turn against each other? Do you think their willingness to take part in the lottery makes them bad people? Why or why not? Can you think of any real-world examples where people have done bad things for what they believed to be a greater good? Cite examples from the text, your own experience, and other literature, art, or history in your answer.

2. Mrs. Hutchinson doesn’t argue about whether or not the lottery is fair until her husband is
picked. Why do you think this is? Do you agree with Mrs. Hutchinson that it is unfair that her
family was selected for the lottery? Why or why not?

3. Are you surprised that everyone in the town goes along with the lottery? Why or why not?
Do you think the townspeople are influenced by the actions of those around them? Have
you ever felt compelled to do something because other people were doing it

Why do the townspeople agree to take part in the lottery and turn against each other?

Because they are afraid that not continuing with the lottery would bring them bad luck.

Explanation:

"The Lottery" is a short story written by Shirley Jackson, about an annual ritual that takes place in a fictional town in contemporary America. The person who 'wins' the lottery is murdered by stoning.

The villagers refuse to give up the lottery because they believe that this ritual ensures good harvest. Moreover, the lottery has been taking place for decades, and it is unimaginable for the villagers to stop holding this event, even if it means that they need to kill their neighbors and friends.

Do  you think their willingness to take part in the lottery makes them bad people? Why or why  not?

We could say that the villagers are not essentially bad people for participating in the lottery. The more precise terms we could use to describe them would be foolish and ignorant.

Explanation:

The absurdity of the lottery is reflected in the fact that the winner has to die. The villagers are afraid of the lottery, but participate in it every year. They are convinced that there needs to be a sacrifice. It could be argued that the villagers are not bad people for participating in the lottery. They are just foolish because they blindly follow such a pointless tradition. They lack judgment and logical thinking, as well as courage to put a stop to this unreasonable ritual. On the other hand, it could also be argued that as long as they do not suffer the consequences of the lottery, the villagers play by its rules. But when members of their family are selected as winners, they protest, which is seen when Tessie's husband is selected.

Can you think of any real-world examples where people have done bad things for what  they believed to be a greater good?

Examples are all around us, but it is unlikely that bad things are really done for a greater good.

Explanation:

The examples where people have done bad things for what they believed to be a greater good are all around us. However, we have to ask ourselves whether it is really for a greater good. In the story, the villagers believe that they are sacrificing their friends for a greater good of having a good harvest, which is unlikely to be true. Even if it does bring them good harvest, it is not worth the lives of their neighbors. In real life, for instance, people steal so as to give to the poor. The politicians lie for the sake of winning the election, convincing themselves that they will change once they win. Although the saying is that "the end justifies the means", as seen in this story, this is not always true.

I hope this helps you!

bildungsroman describes a coming-of-age story.

hope this you ; )

word count 168

serve the people! ,” smoothly translated by julia lovell, offers an initial sample of yan lianke’s writing to an english-speaking audience. a bluntly drawn, mildly erotic fable, it teases mao zedong by poking fun at a true believer who obeys the chairman’s precepts too literally. to a western sensibility, the broad strokes of yan lianke’s humor would seem to pose little risk of inciting rebellion, whether of the flesh or of the body politic. but then, part of the book’s attraction is that it doesn’t have a western sensibility. it lets the reader see — or rather, intuit — what jokes chinese officials don’t consider funny, and how very little it takes for a writer to be branded an incendiary in 21st-century china, more than three decades after the death of mao, a decade after the death of deng xiaoping and seven years since china entered the world trade organization, a move that would seem to signal a willingness (however wary) to mingle with the rest of the world.