Most likely the answer would be A
Literature and the Holocaust have a complicated relationship. This isn't to say, of course, that the pairing isn't a fruitful one—the Holocaust has influenced, if not defined, nearly every Jewish writer since, from Saul Bellow to Jonathan Safran Foer, and many non-Jews besides, like W.G. Sebald and Jorge Semprun. Still, literature qua art—innately concerned with representation and appropriation—seemingly stands opposed to the immutability of the Holocaust and our oversized obligations to its memory. Good literature makes artistic demands, flexes and contorts narratives, resists limpid morality, compromises reality's details. Regarding the Holocaust, this seems unconscionable, even blasphemous. The horrors of Auschwitz and Buchenwald need no artistic amplification.
The advantage of changing this excerpt to Avery's first-person point of view would be to get more background on why Maritza treats Avery this way.
When we have a different perspective of the story we can have access to much more complete characters this is the real advantage of doing that.
It is not necessary to compare Rosa Parks and Irene Morgan's stories since the characters we are talking about are in fact, Maritza and Avery.
Answers:
an interview with a social media blogger A)
a piece by a family counselor in a newspaper E)
a journal article by a psychologist F)
