If you don’t agree with someone’s interpretation of a novel, what two things should you do? (Choose all that apply.) Leave the subject before an argument begins.

Explain how your interpretation is different.

Consider if your interpretation could be expanded or tweaked.

Modify your view to match the person’s interpretation.

Read the excerpt from elie wiesel’s all rivers run to the sea. why were those trains allowed to roll unhindered into poland? why were the tracks leading to birkenau never bombed? i have put these questions to american presidents and generals and to high-ranking soviet officers. since moscow and washington knew what the killers were doing in the death camps, why was nothing done at least to slow down their “production”? that not a single allied military aircraft ever tried to destroy the rail lines converging on auschwitz remains an outrageous enigma to me. birkenau was “processing” ten thousand jews a day. stopping a single convoy for a single night—or even for just a few hours—would have prolonged so many lives. based on the paragraph, the author would most likely agree that it is best to avoid confrontation at all costs. people need to be proactive when they witness an injustice. countries should remain neutral to keep alliances strong. moscow and washington are to be blamed for the holocaust.

Read the passage from animal farm. "that was part of the arrangement! " cried squealer. "jones's shot only grazed him. i could show you this in his own writing, if you were able to read it. the plot was for snowball, at the critical moment, to give the signal for flight and leave the field to the enemy. and he very nearly succeeded—i will even say, comrades, he would have succeeded if it had not been for our heroic leader, comrade napoleon. do you not remember how, just at the moment when jones and his men had got inside the yard, snowball suddenly turned and fled, and many animals followed him? and do you not remember, too, that it was just at that moment, when panic was spreading and all seemed lost, that comrade napoleon sprang forward with a cry of 'death to humanity! ' and sank his teeth in jones's leg? surely you remember that, comrades? " exclaimed squealer, frisking from side to side. now when squealer described the scene so graphically, it seemed to the animals that they did remember it. at any rate, they remembered that at the critical moment of the battle snowball had turned to flee. but boxer was still a little uneasy. how does the characterization of squealer support the author’s purpose? squealer's dramatic accusations draw parallels between him and stalin’s propagandists. squealer's uncertainty shows that he is not a reliable ally of napoleon and is ineffective with messaging. squealer's ability to get the animals to listen to him shows that any animal can rise to be a leader in time. squealer's humble interactions with the animals reflect the importance of equality and cooperation.

Read the excerpt from "the most dangerous game." again rainsford lifted the heavy knocker, and let it fall. the door opened then, opened as suddenly as if it were on a spring, and rainsford stood blinking in the river of glaring gold light that poured out. the first thing rainsford's eyes discerned was the largest man rainsford had ever seen—a gigantic creature, solidly made and black bearded to the waist. in his hand the man held a long-barreled revolver, and he was pointing it straight at rainsford's heart. the details of this excerpt show that rainsford sees ivan as a(n) individual.