Which statement best explains the role of the tragic hero archetype in literature?

the tragic hero’s role is to bring the central character into conflict.
the tragic hero’s role is to experience a downfall due to a personal flaw.
the tragic hero’s role is to overcome a conflict caused by an adversary.
the tragic hero’s role is to highlight a particular quality in another character.

The statement that best explains the role of the tragic hero archetype in literature is the second one: the tragic hero’s role is to experience a downfall due to a personal flaw.

Aristotle describes the role of the tragic hero in his Poetics. He states that the tragic hero is the main character of a tragedy, which also experiences a change of fortune from good to bad. For that reason, he is the one whom the audience ends up feeling pity for. According to Aristotle, this reversal of fortune is caused by a flaw in the character of the tragic hero. Hamartia is another term used to refer to the main character's error. Two characters that can be considered tragic heroes are Oedipus and Creon, which are part of Sophocles' plays.

option B.or The tragic hero’s role is to experience a downfall due to a personal flaw.

Explanation: hope u guys enjoy the rest of your day

answer: b. grete might have remained as shy and immature as she was at the beginning of the story.

one of the most interesting characteristics of gregor's metamorphosis is that, although he is the only character who has physically changed, it is this same change which triggered a transformation in the rest of his family.

by taking care of gregor, grete has become stronger and more confident. she has found a life outside of the house, and has become more independent and self-sufficient. the novel implies that the trigger for the change is gregor's own transformation, and that without it, grete was likely to remain as shy and immature as she was at the beginning of the book.

explanation:

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.