Answer and Explanation:
From reading the poem, we can see that people know a version of Aunt Imogen, the younger version of her, full of dreams and plans. However, the lack of coexistence and the loss of contact between the family, meant that they did not follow the changes that Aunt Imogen went through, which turned her into someone else, who no one knows anymore, just herself. Aunt Imogen's family knew her as someone happy and excited and they believe she remains that way, but inside herself, Aunt Imogen knows how sad, frustrated and lonely she feels. Only she knows this thought and only she knows herself completely.
In this case, the poem reinforces the idea that knowing someone does not mean knowing that person for real, as we do not have access to the deepest and most personal thoughts that transform a person completely. We only really know ourselves, because we can't get away from what we think.
We can see this in the lines:
<em>"Was there for only one month in the year,/ While she, the mother,—she was always there;/ And that was what made all the difference./ She knew it must be so, for Jane had once/ Expounded it to her so learnedly/ That she had looked away from the child’s eyes
/ And thought; and she had thought of many things."
</em>
use it as a chance to improve and work even harder
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 sentences aren't an analogy, they are similes.
