Several ironic statements are presented in the story. Sentence fragments such as "... did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?" include verbal irony. Regardless of the fact that you may assume it to be true, that the accused person indeed is given option, that he during his trial can open either door, that he can decide his own path, concluding that he does have the matter in his own hands, still, even though he is given choice, his choice does not fully depend on his deeds in life, nor does it depend on the crime that was done by him, it is a chance that the accused is supposed to take. He cannot know what is hidden behind each of the doors (he only knows that behind one of the doors is a tiger, and behind the other is the lady.). He may've not been in such situation at all if he really has had the alternative. Indeed, the king is forcing the accused to be judged this way. May be if the king may've not been the judge in this matter, accused will rather prefer to be released, but he cannot decide that for himself. Furthermore, statement "... crime was punished or virtue rewarded, by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance." contains verbal irony also. By looking at the facts, you can see that a person is forced to be judged by this system, he is required to make his decision, although he may like neither solution. It is probable that the accused will not have any advantage over the others in the tribunal. In overall, the assumption is that the system is unjust and corrupt for the accused person. That person
Several ironic statements are presented in the story. Sentence fragments such as "... did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?" include verbal irony. Regardless of the fact that you may assume it to be true, that the accused person indeed is given option, that he during his trial can open either door, that he can decide his own path, concluding that he does have the matter in his own hands, still, even though he is given choice, his choice does not fully depend on his deeds in life, nor does it depend on the crime that was done by him, it is a chance that the accused is supposed to take. He cannot know what is hidden behind each of the doors (he only knows that behind one of the doors is a tiger, and behind the other is the lady.). He may've not been in such situation at all if he really has had the alternative. Indeed, the king is forcing the accused to be judged this way. May be if the king may've not been the judge in this matter, accused will rather prefer to be released, but he cannot decide that for himself. Furthermore, statement "... crime was punished or virtue rewarded, by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance." contains verbal irony also. By looking at the facts, you can see that a person is forced to be judged by this system, he is required to make his decision, although he may like neither solution. It is probable that the accused will not have any advantage over the others in the tribunal. In overall, the assumption is that the system is unjust and corrupt for the accused person. That person