Read all the description that i have wrote it carefully
Length: 550-750 words
This assignment conciliate claim you to prefer leading fountsand do the prospering: ( see the appendement smooth to ascertain the fount (quantity of odes). Also bring-environing strong to interpret the pace criteria and prosper the schoolmistress that on it, you ascertain it in the append smooth)
in conjunction this clear-up i enjoy recived from my professor:
1. chat environing the fount ( chat environing sovereign wah, fertile year, big rat, brosns, the rate wreath)
2. chat environing when this written.
3. they chat environing what in this fount?
4. chat environing the tail account of sovereign wen.
5. chat environing interpretd.
6. why they interpret the proceedings.
7. conncdted to political systematize or creed or poilitcs.
8. chat environing the north wreath, what is going on? why they neglect liberty goverment? why north wreath may be similar/
9.transcribe a cheerful limits and translation.
10. footonotes curb the Chicago Manual of Style.
11.Also, dont obliviate to interpret the knowledge halloo.
- Identification: Identify the fount (who, what, where, when) and determine the author’s purpose of view
- Historical Context: Locate it the tenor of a broader unadorned episode, bear, or result (you don't enjoy to debate them all. One or two conciliate do.)
- Historical Question: Pose a topic that this fount susceptibility be used to rejoinder and clear-up how you would use the fount to rejoinder that topic. Your topic should inhale a relation between the micro (your fount as an idiosyncratical event) and the macro (some larger unadorned fruit). By rejoindering it, you should be effectual to betray your interpreter notability that helps them amend conceive the duration and locate in which the fount was written. Please escape the prospering: (1) Counterfactual (what if...) topics, (2) Reading apprehension topics (what happened following x said ...?) , (3) Moral-ethical topics (Is x a cheerful idiosyncratic?)
- Limits of the Source: Debate limits or problems of using this fount. You susceptibility debate the author's tailaccount and biases or the kinds of founts he used. Also, reflect things that the fount cannot betray you.