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:
jumble the words together in the description
convey the main character’s chaotic mental state
Explanation:
This is a way that the writer shows us a complex connection of the many, many pieces around that make a living, complicated whole that we are not supposed to understand, but perceive as confusing and beyond our grasp. This is also a way to show the mind of the character: <em>"[...]and a thousand parts too small or two complex or too divorced from their origin or context or too specialized and thus identifiable only by their creator"</em>
Answer: to reveal that dictators manipulate others and use deception to further their ambitions.
Explanation:
Orwell's main purpose in this passage is to reveal that dictators manipulate others and use deception to further their ambitions.
Despite the famine and the food situation, Napoleon was well aware of the bad results that might follow if the real facts of the food situation were known, and therefore he decided to make use of Mr. Whymper to spread a contrary impression. This showed that he deceived others.
Mr Sewall was refereing to a biblical scenario, The one of Joseph, to talk about how slavery should not be considered whatsoever. He refered to three major arguments to defend his abolitional document: African slaves were descended from Adam and Eve, Israelites were expressly forbidden from buying and selling slaves and The enslave,net of Joseph was illegal and immoral. Based on this document, Sewall appealed to christians by leading them to the immediate emancipation of countless slaves.
this is the best i can do hope it helps
The right answer would be B)Logical evidence showing that sugar farming was changing because of laws and low prices. I just read the passage and knew it was right. :) Hoped this helped
