In Act II, what key comparison does Hamlet draw between himself and the players confirming that he is a coward? What inference can you make about the power of words versus actions from this comparison? Cite evidence from the text.

Answer and Explanation:

Hamlet shows that players are able to gather emotions and express themselves according to them, unlike him, who does not have the courage to act according to what he feels, which ends up causing problems, anguish and confusion.

From this, we can infer that the words and actions we do can be completely disastrous when we act according to repressed and misunderstood feelings, it is necessary that we understand our emotional situation and act in the most beneficial way possible in relation to it.

Evidence of Hamlet's thinking at that moment can be shown through the paragraph:

"What would he [the player would] do Had he the motive and the cue for passion That I have? He would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech, Make mad the guilty and appall the free ."

sight, hearing

explanation:

vote brainliest if

in "people in peace, not profit and war" chrisholm uses inductive reasoning for her argument against defense spending by stating that the new administration, like most americans, wanted to invest in social objectives, so they must not want to prioritize defense spending. mr. nixon said "we can delay no longer in launching new approaches to the problem that beset them", but chrisholm points out that the programs were delayed anyways.