So it was that on the twenty-ninth day of february, at the beginning of the thaw, this singular person fell out of infinity into iping village. in this first sentence from the passage, the author uses the words fell out of infinity
a) to demonstrate how dangerous the snow was as it began to thaw.
b) to show that the stranger stumbled as he arrived in the village.
c) to show that the stranger just appeared in the village seemingly without a purpose.
d) to explain that the stranger arrived that day without his luggage or any other possessions.

Now that you have been exposed to the four major sociological perspectives and in keeping with the concept of getting to know each other; this discussion question will ask for your general opinion as to which one of the four sociological perspectives make the most sense to you. (1. functionalist perspective 2. conflict perspective 3. symbolic interactionist perspective 4. postmodern perspective) in other words which one of the four perspectives do you believe best explains why people do the things they do in our society? which one of the four perspectives best explains why you believe the things you do, and why you act the way that you do?

What do mcmahon’s references to thomas carlyle and john stuart mill do for his own image and credibility?

Create a well-crafted essay of 1-2 pages outlining a likely theory of king tutankhamun’s death at the age of nineteen. your goal is to convince peers your age that this is the most reasonable theory according to the evidence. incorporate the subjunctive and conditional moods within your writing. use the following rubric to guide your writing. remember to check your spelling (by using a spell checker and also against the original text) to ensure the proper spelling of names and places in king tut’s world. reminder: spell checkers are great, but they’re not always right. think about terms specific to egypt or even tutankhamun’s name. a spell checker won’t know if you’re spelling these correctly, so check with the reading to keep consistent. rubric criterion exceptional capable developing beginning points earned ideas & content main claim supporting details sources are cited clear, focused, interesting ideas with appropriate detail, sources are cited evident main idea with some support which may be general or limited, sources are mentioned main idea may be unclear; supporting detail is vague or off topic, some source information used central idea or theme is not stated; supporting detail may be nonexistent, no sources mentioned organization structure (claim/counterclaim) introduction conclusion strong organization; seamless paragraph transitions; effective and engaging intro and conclusion organization is appropriate but conventional; attempt at introduction and conclusion attempts at organization, inappropriate use of lists or bullets; introduction and conclusion are not developed no introduction or conclusion; no clear organizational framework or transitions voice personality sense of audience appropriate to audience; expressive, engaging, sincere voice is appropriate to topic, but inconsistent or dry voice may be inappropriate; writing may seem mechanical writer’s voice is inappropriate or nonexistent word choice precision effectiveness imagery broad range of descriptive words; creative examples, vivid details and images language is functional and appropriate; descriptions may lack detail or be overdone words may be correct but simplistic; no attempt at detail, description, or examples word choice is limited, words are often misused; supporting detail and examples are nonexistent sentence fluency rhythm, flow variety easy flow and rhythm; good variety in length and structure sentences are appropriate but lack variety and length awkward phrasing and structure, similar patterns and choppy language sentences are incomplete or difficult to follow, language is confusing conventions age appropriate spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar strong use of correct conventions; errors are few and minor most writing conventions correct; occasional high profile errors frequent errors; most do not interfere with readability frequent errors interfere with readability