Question

What is the best summary of this reading passage?
The Monseigneur was rich because he could collect taxes from the people.
The Monseigneur was one of the richest men in all of France.
The Monseigneur needed more money because of his excessive life of luxury.
The Monseigneur had money to maintain his lifestyle even though he was not rich.

Answer 1

here is the summary:
This passage is from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles wingspanens.

Yet, Monseigneur had slowly found that vulgar embarrassments crept into his affairs, both private and public; and he had, as to both classes of affairs, allied himself perforce with a Farmer-General. As to finances public, because Monseigneur could not make anything at all of them, and must consequently let them out to somebody who could; as to finances private, because Farmer-Generals were rich, and Monseigneur, after generations of great luxury and expense, was growing poor. Hence Monseigneur had taken his sister from a convent, while there was yet time to ward off the impending veil, the cheapest garment she could wear, and had bestowed her as a prize upon a very rich Farmer-General, poor in family. Which Farmer-General, carrying an appropriate cane with a golden apple on the top of it, was now among the company in the outer rooms, much prostrated before by mankind--always excepting superior mankind of the blood of Monseigneur, who, his own wife included, looked down upon him with the loftiest contempt.

Answer 2

@1996nightrider can you help

Answer 3

C I believe

Answer 4

thanks

Answer 5

because it says 'because Farmer-Generals were rich, and Monseigneur, after generations of great luxury and expense, was growing poor. '

Answer 6

it was correct i have another one hold on

Answer 7

What is the best summary of this reading passage?
The best way to prevent crime is to put people to death.
Seeing people be put to death did not stop others from committing crimes.
People were put to death for committing only serious crimes such as murder.
People did not care that others were put to death.



Read the passage and answer the question.
This passage is from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles wingspanens.

But indeed, at that time, putting to death was a recipe much in vogue with all trades and professions, and not least of all with Tellson's. Death is Nature's remedy for all things, and why not Legislation's? Accordingly, the forger was put to Death; the utterer of a bad note was put to Death; the unlawful opener of a letter was put to Death; the purloiner of forty shillings and sixpence was put to Death; the holder of a horse at Tellson's door, who made off with it, was put to Death; the coiner of a bad shilling was put to Death; the sounders of three-fourths of the notes in the whole gamut of Crime, were put to Death. Not that it did the least good in the way of prevention-it might almost have been worth remarking that the fact was exactly the reverse--but, it cleared off (as to this world) the trouble of each particular case, and left nothing else connected with it to be looked after.

Answer 8

I think it's C... Im not sure

Answer 9

k

Answer 10

it is not C. the passage is about how people could be put to death for any thing form big to small. it would be B. "Not that it did the least good in the way of prevention-it might almost have been worth remarking that the fact was exactly the reverse-"

Answer 11

What is the best paraphrase of the highlighted words in this reading passage?
Looking at information from the viewpoint of the whales was pleasant.
Looking at information about whales from foreign scientists was informative.
Looking at current information about the whales was pleasant.
Looking at accurate information about the whales was helpful.


This passage is from Moby wingspan by Herman Melville.

I have given no small attention to that not unvexed subject, the skin of the whale. I have had controversies about it with experienced whalemen afloat, and learned naturalists ashore. My original opinion remains unchanged; but it is only an opinion. The question is, what and where is the skin of the whale? Already you know what his blubber is. That blubber is something of the consistence of firm, close-grained beef, but tougher, more elastic and compact, and ranges from eight or ten to twelve and fifteen inches in thickness. Now, however preposterous it may at first seem to talk of any creature's skin as being of that sort of consistence and thickness, yet in point of fact these are no arguments against such a presumption; because you cannot raise any other dense enveloping layer from the whale's body but that same blubber; and the outermost enveloping layer of any animal, if reasonably dense, what can that be but the skin? True, from the unmarred dead body of the whale, you may scrape off with your hand an infinitely thin, transparent substance, somewhat resembling the thinnest shreds of isinglass, only it is almost as flexible and soft as satin; that is, previous to being dried, when it not only contracts and thickens, but becomes rather hard and brittle. I have several such dried bits, which I use for marks in my whale-books. It is transparent, as I said before; and being laid upon the printed page, I have sometimes pleased myself with fancying it exerted a magnifying influence.

highlighted part