The order opens with a remark of an interpretive nature. The footage reveals discrepancies between the observations of welfare officials and the truth about the emergency. A comment implies the presence of an obscurity. Thus, the dates ranging from August 8 to 11 are rehashed, three times in order to accompany an articulation. The above has been called the pinnacle of mortality and imposes creation thoughtfully. These comments make the true voice of its creators who are heard and present an emotional way with impacts of irony. In the abstract hypothesis, sensational incongruity alludes to the distinction of knowledge between the characters, the storyteller and the group of spectators. Depending on a variety of highlighted scenarios, the narrator gives data that the characters in the story did not have when they were handling the circumstances. As such, this clever gimmick reinforces the gap between the heroes' activities and the way data was processed. The latter highlighted the issue of consistency by asking questions to try to find out if it would be a less spoiled design. The claim from the previous survey was then measured against its reality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay. On the other hand, a non-response was attached regarding behavior. By decoupling emergency situations from ongoing ordinary events, emphasizing some certainties and downplaying others, and including interpretive commentary, the apparently target order laid the foundation for the narrative plot that then created in the report. Report 2 highlights the problem of coherence by emphasizing the absence of expectations as a central point in the advancement of the emergency situation. The report connects understanding (or knowing) and adjustment (or acting), advocating a duality. To break down this seemingly obvious articulation, a semiotic square is used. Lack of preparation is only one of four conceivable relationships between knowing and acting, alongside prudence, spontaneity, and idleness. This makes complete sense if we separate the framework into subsections, following the report's assumption that information about a circumstance starts from the warning framework, passes through the authoritative framework, and finally , comes to companies that provide care. The report makes clear from the outset that hypothetical and pragmatic knowledge about the welfare impacts of heatwaves was generally accessible before the situation occurred. However, this information has not been used to integrate health risk markers into the national epidemiological recognition framework. Despite the vulnerability, a competent act of spontaneity was the response of the associations directly included in the victims, joined later by the moderate initiators of the opinion and the management framework. The semiotics of coherence allows researchers to see how the report set the stage for the history of the emergency and should therefore be understood as a procedure. The main driving force behind this procedure is that the situation of not knowing or acting in time was not stable. We couldn't stay indifferent for long. As the emergency arises and action unfolds, information spreads and the situation evolves into inactivity or an act of spontaneity. The second factor was that different parts of the welfare system evolve in different ways: as proposed above, some have slipped into inertia, while others.