Which phrase in this excerpt from James Joyce's "Araby" is a participial phrase? North Richmond Street, being blind, was a quiet street except at the hour when the Christian Brothers' School set the boys free. An uninhabited
house of two storeys stood at the blind end, detached from its neighbours in a square ground. The other houses of the street, conscious of
decent lives within them, gazed at one another with brown imperturbable faces.
The former tenant of our house, a priest, had died in the back drawing-room Air, musty from having been long enclosed, hung in all the rooms,
and the waste room behind the kitchen was littered with old useless papers. Among these I found a few paper-covered books, the pages of
which were curled and damp: The Abbot, by Walter Scott, The Devout Communicant and The Memoirs of Vidocq. I liked the last best because its
leaves were yellow. The wild garden behind the house contained a central apple-tree and a few straggling bushes under one of which I found
the late tenant's rusty bicycle-pump. He had been a very charitable priest: in his will he had left all his money to institutions and the furniture of
his house to his sister

- "a nonrestrictive clause functions as a modifier to a noun (that is an object, person or concept). these clauses can be described by the following three options: it is set off by comas, it contains a subject and a verbs and it adds nonessential information to the sentence.

for example, in "here is bill gates, who confounded microsoft software company" we can identify "who confounded microsoft software company" as a nonrestrictive clause modifying the noun bill gates. this clause can be describes as a nonrestrictive clause because it is separated by a comma, it adds nonessential information to identify who bill gates is and it must contain both a subject (who) and a verb (confounded)."

here is the answer its my picture of my notebook

add me on snap   tschrake20

the best summary of the passage is the second one, because it is more complete and exact and makes specific references to the excerpt, as well as it contains a deeper interpretation to brutus words:

brutus says he has no personal reason to kill caesar, but wants to anyway. brutus decides that, for the good of the people, caesar must be killed. if they crowned caesar, they would be giving him power, with which he could do damage.   brutus compares caesar to a snake and says that they need to tread carefully around him. brutus declares that caesar must die, though he has nothing personal against him. he worries about how caesar would change if he were crowned and explains that evil comes from good—much like dangerous snakes can come out on sunny days, when everyone needs to watch where they step. he says that caesar may do damage if he is crowned.

brutus has no intention to wish caesar’s death, but he understands that he is not trustworthy and the power he would acquire after his crowning may damage people and brutus’ work is to protect people. that is the reason why he refers to “a general cause” rather than a “personal cause”, the general welfare is at risk, not him. brutus argues that caesar is not different from a snake, as good things bring about bad people, caesar will bring bad things to the people he is supposed to protect, because his nature is wickedness. and then, he continues: ‘and that craves wary walking’ which means that   the only possible solution is to kill caesar, at least to be cautious.