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:
the summary is one isolated thought in a passage
This question is about the article "When Clothing Labels Are a Matter of Life or Death".
Answer:
Promote visibility, extinguish subcontracting, pressure from investors.
Explanation:
In the article Kashyap shows how the clothing and footwear manufacturing industries have been one of the biggest centers of disrespect for human rights, causing workers to work exhaustively, earning few wages and being subjected to inhospitable environments and with little security.
For Kashyap, there are three processes that can prevent this from happening and can improve the lives of these workers. These processes are the transparency of the companies that consume the products of these industries, showing how the entire production process is, the extinction of subcontracting, which subjects workers to inhuman conditions of employment and pressure from investors who can charge for better working conditions.
The excerpt mainly focuses on the general idea that television has a bad influence on children, so I would say the best answer choice is "television has a bad influence on children." It doesn't focus too much on the three types of shows, but otherwise that would be the second best answer. Let me know which one is correct, but I believe it's B.
The answer is C. It’s saying the sun is angry and that it threw down it’s rays. Both human characteristics. So they are personifying the sun.
