How does the setting affect jonathan's actions in the
excerpt?
read the excerpt from "civil peace" by chinua achebe.
of course the doors and windows were missing and five
sheets off the roof. but what was that? and anyhow he had
returned to enugu early enough to pick up bits of old zinc
and wood and soggy sheets of cardboard lying around the
neighbourhood before thousands more came out of their
forest holes looking for the same things.
jonathan returns to enugu to the thousands of other
people clean up the war-torn area.
jonathan works on rebuilding his house early in the
morning with the materials he finds on the ground.
jonathan works on the other houses in the neighborhood
before moving on to fix his own house later,
jonathan returns to enugu early to collect debris before
others in the war-torn area do.

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.

answer: the first one

explanation:

explicitly is defined as “in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” the rest are interpretive and not clearly proven leaving in fact possible “confusion or doubt” which explicitly, by definition cannot have.

the knight would die while giong on a quest.