Hello. The full question is:
When he's speaking of his time in the camps hoping for rescue, Wiesel writes, "If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene." What kind of figurative language is this (metaphor, personification, hyperbole)? How does it support Wiesel's main ideas about indifference?
Answer:
metaphor
Explanation:
Wiesel uses metaphor to compare the indifference of political leaders to the lack of information about what was happening in the Nazi concentration camps. And it shows that the people who had the power to intervene in the atrocities that were happening to the Jews, did not, in fact, know how this situation was happening and that was why they were indifferent and did not present any concern or intervention.
The metaphor is a figure of speech that promotes an implicit or explained relationship between two elements that have some kind of relationship.
Answer: A summary could be followed by a Conclusion, at least it seems reasonable if you get up and have something to say, something of enough importance to convey, you certainly can summarize what you tried to get across, and lastly provide a conclusion to make the Speech and your point of giving it, (at last complete), with a Conclusion.
This is simply my opinion, and I am not referencing any “rule book”, just what I find to be reasonable.
A final Conclusion would by this time,
allow the listener to evaluate all the speaker had said and why. It would have a greater purpose beyond a mere exercise.
This is, again, simply my view on the question and a proposed answer.
Explanation:
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Every day we make choices about the way we live. alot of choices we make without even thinking that can either negatively or positively affect the planet. We, as members of a growing community, need to start making a habit of making the conscious choice to recycle, keep a better carbon foot print, and start leading healthier lives. If we don't start making the conscious choice to preserve our wildlife and atmosphere we will start to see greater consequences then we already have. Trees give us the oxegyn we need to survive everyday. places like LA and Tokyo have horrible smog and air quality because they have tons of machinery polluting the air and no trees and plants to help preserve.
