Explain at least two examples of irony in "The Story of an Hour." Be sure to label which type of irony each example is. Use complete sentences for full
credit.

Perhaps, the most salient example of situational irony is in the turn of events in the hour that suggest that Bently Mallard is dead and Mrs. Louise Mallard has fully come alive. For, incongruously the narrative abruptly changes and it is Bently Mallard who yet lives

Mark me as brainliest pls

Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" is a masterpiece of the literary technique of irony; even the title is ironic in that so much that is unexpected happens in the life of Louise Mallard in just sixty minutes. Here are other examples of the three types of irony:

Situational Irony  

Since irony always involves an incongruity, this type of irony is one in which the expectation and the fulfillment are not what is expected. Perhaps, the most salient example of situational irony is in the turn of events in the hour that suggest that Bently Mallard is dead and Mrs. Louise Mallard has fully come alive. For, incongruously the narrative abruptly changes and it is Bently Mallard who yet lives while Mrs. Mallard, who with "triumph in her eyes" as she descends the stairs from her room in which she has "breathed a quick prayer that life might be long"; perceives her husband as he comes through the door, and with a "piercing cry" abruptly dies.

Verbal irony

This type of irony involves an incongruity of words. That is, verbal irony is a statement by the writer which means the opposite of what it appears to mean. While Chopin's story has several instances of verbal irony, one example is Chopin's use of "a heart trouble" at the beginning of the narrative. It seems that the phrase denotes a physical ailment, but Chopin does not intend for "heart" to denote the organ of the body. Instead, the reader later discerns, "heart" connotes the figurative heart; that is, the soul. Mrs. Mallard suffers from repression, a trouble of the soul.

Dramatic irony

Dramatic irony involves differing perceptions by the reader than by a character in the story. For instance, when Mrs. Mallard will not allow Josephine to help her upstairs, it seems that she is so grief-stricken that she wishes to be alone. However, unbeknownst to the character Josephine, the reader learns that Louise Mallard wishes to be alone so that she can fully comprehend her freedom from repression as a Victorian wife:

She sat with her head thrown back upon the cushion of the chair, quite motionless

There was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfullyShe was beginning to recognize this thing that was approaching...

When she abandoned herself a little whispered word escaped"free, free, free!"

Instead of grieving as Josephine believes, Louise Mallard rejoices in her new freedom. Since only the reader is privy to this knowledge and the character Josephine and, later, her husband Bently do not know her feelings, dramatic irony exists.

Indeed, it is this masterful use of irony in her very short story that gives Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" such powerful implications.

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