Determine which of the underlined words is used correctly in the sentence.
A)I did good on that test.
B)I wanted to visit the capital building in Washington, D.C.
C) The principal at my old elementary school retired last year.
D)Even though my favorite basketball team should have won, it looked like they were going to loose the game.
Precizeaza functia sintactica si cazul pronumelor marcate:
a) A privit inaintea lui
A privit inaintea-i
b) Ti-a dat un premiu
S-a napustit asupra-ti
c) Am vazut-o
Am luat-o la fuga
d) Florile sunt pentru ea
Florile sunt in ea
e) Imi place cartea de la ea
Venea de la ea de acasa
f) O asculta pe ea
Vorbesc despre ea
g) O vad pe ea
Se bizuie pe ea
A circle has a radius of 6 in. The circumscribed equilateral triangle will have an area of:
The area of the circumscribed equilateral triangle is 36√3 square inches.
The diameter of the circle is twice the radius, so it's 2 × 6 = 12 inches.
Now, in an equilateral triangle, all sides are equal. If s represents the length of one side of the equilateral triangle, we have:
s = 12 inches
Now, the formula to find the area of an equilateral triangle is:
Area = (√3 / 4) × s²
Substituting the value of s:
Area = (√3 / 4) × (12)²
Area = (√3 / 4) × 144
Area = 36√3
So, the area of the circumscribed equilateral triangle is 36√3 square inches.
What is Chesterton’s central idea in this essay, and how does he introduce it?
The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.
To counter the common assumptions about success, Chesterton describes people in various walks of life and how each might more realistically succeed. In this description, he suggests that these books falsely pretend to help people succeed in their own social circles and encourage people to try to become something they are not and cannot ever be.
Chesterton says these writers tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his career—if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; or if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. Chesterton increases his satire at this point, commenting that the authors say a grocer may become a sporting yachtsman; a tenth-rate journalist may become a peer, which is a British nobleman; and a German Jew may become an Anglo-Saxon. Obviously, these transitions are unlikely or even impossible. Chesterton then criticizes the main assumption of these books and the society that produces it. By claiming that average people can follow in the steps of business tycoons such as Rothschild or Vanderbilt, the book's author is taking part in "the horrible mysticism of money," in which people worship the unlikely possibility of achieving great riches.