Answer:
B. Bierce uses setting to develop conflict.
Explanation:
The structure makes this story so commendable a bit of writing on account of how unbelievably each part is executed. Bierce gives perusers enough pieces of information to speculate what's going on: Farquhar felt time moderate down toward the finish of Part I; Part II gives us the backstory and clarifies exactly how he wound up being hanged in any case; and Part III contains enough intimations for us to comprehend that what's going on isn't exactly right. Farquhar sees subtleties and has encounters that no living individual could, but, as this area proceeds with (it is the longest of the three sections), we can get somewhat lost in the story. It's nearly just as the article presented in Part II joined with the detail and length of Part III isolates us enough from the certainties of Part I that we really start to trust that Farquhar could have gotten away. Therefore, it comes as something of a stun—in spite of the numerous signs we've had—when his neck snaps. We understand that the total of Part III, up until the last passage, occurred in Farquhar's mind, from the minute the sergeant ventured off the board and he started to fall until the minute the rope extended tight and his neck snapped. Bierce utilizes this structure to amaze us be that as it may, maybe, additionally to refine a gathering that is regularly criticized: Civil War-period Southerners.
