This question is about the article "American flag stands for tolerance"
Answer and Explanation:
Allen shows that he believes that an individual can present better ways to show his discontent with the government instead of disrespecting the national flag by burning it, with that, we can see that he does not agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow the burning of flags is a fair protest against the government, but quickly Allen claims that the Supreme Court is correct in allowing this, since even presenting a form of disrespect, the burning of flags is part of a peaceful protest, in addition to allowing freedom of expression in the country.
This shows that Allen's arguments are based on the country's ethical and legal standards and not on his own opinions, or on the sentimetalism he may feel for national symbols. He addresses the counterargument as a justification as to why he should not evaluate the Supreme Court's permission, but rather support it. This can be seen through the paragraph:
<em>"The American flag is a cherished symbol of our national aspirations [...] iven the widespread and deeply felt reverence for this symbol of what we perceive to be the best of our civilization, what is the harm in insisting upon a modicum of respect for it? [...] Any messages that burning the flag might convey easily can be communicated in other ways. </em>
<em>The Supreme Court was not wrong. Indeed, a decision contrary to the one reached would have been a definitive step away from our national aspirations. A commitment to the intertwined freedoms of conscience and expression is at the core of those aspirations. What most distinguishes our civilization from both its predecessors and its contemporary competitors is a belief in the sanctity of the human conscience. Each individual is to have the freedom to develop by his or her own lights, and not by the command of officialdom. That requires not just the right to be let alone, but also the right to communicate with, to learn from and test views in conversations."</em>
Answer:
They struggle to fit in.
They feel supported by their mother.
They embrace American culture.
Explanation:
The daughters are young girls who want to be free and experience new things. They know that their father is strict because he forbids the daughters to wander through. The character of the mother in the passage is written to describe her as an understandable woman who wants to satisfy her daughters. She is indulgent towards her daughters.
The daughters are young, cheerful and curious, but they have struggled to fit in. From the passage, readers can see that the girls have a problem in school. They are experiencing problems socially with their peers.They want to experience a new culture, they want to go to the shopping mall or to watch a movie.
shes wrong dont listen to her its c
Answer:
A: Third person point of view :))
