(1) A small sausage in a bun received the name “hot dog” in 1906 as the result of a cartoonist’s poor spelling ability. (2) A sausage vendor, Harry Stevens, sold what he called “dachshund sausages” (named after the short-legged dog) at New York City baseball games. (3) During one of those games, newspaper cartoonist Tad Dorgan was in the audience. (4) He sketched a cartoon of a live dachshund, smeared with mustard and folded into a bun. (5) Not knowing how to spell “dachshund,” however, he settled on “dog,” giving the cartoon the caption “Get your hot dogs!” (6) Once the cartoon was published in newspapers, readers began demanding their own “hot dogs.” QuestionC8. The transition that signals the main pattern of organization in this paragraph is: (Type one word. Then click “GO.”)

Read this excerpt from the exposition in "the monkey's paw." father and son were at chess, the former, who possessed ideas about the game involving radical changes, putting his king into such sharp and unnecessary perils that it even provoked comment from the white-haired old lady knitting placidly by the fire. what is one piece of information you can infer about the story from this sentence? a. the father in the story is possessed, so he probably says insane things a lot. b. the woman in the story is knitting, so the characters probably don't have good clothes to wear. c. the father is playing chess with the son, but the son is not old enough to know the rules. d. since the father likes taking risks in a game, he might like taking risks in life as well.

Plz (i only understand "the song of wandering aengus." and i have no idea what the raven means so i can't answer this. me i will give brainlest and a 5-star rating) consider the speakers in "the raven" and the speaker in "the song of wandering aengus." write two paragraphs to compare and contrast the voice in these two poems. how does the poet give the speaker in each poem a distinctive voice? what effect does this voice have in each poem? use examples from each poem to as evidence for your answer

Read this paragraph from chapter 5 of the prince. there are, for example, the spartans and the romans. the spartans held athens and thebes, establishing there an oligarchy: nevertheless they lost them. the romans, in order to hold capua, carthage, and numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. they wished to hold greece as the spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. so to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. and he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. and whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the florentines. what idea is stressed in the passage? the desire for liberty the establishment of an oligarchy the dismantling of an acquired state the tendency toward rebellion