If this is the Diary of Anne Frank, which I believe it is, my guess would be that she is either being critical or she genuinely wants to help them, A or B. It's been so long since I read this, but from what I can remember of Anne, she seems like the type to genuinely want to help them, so I'd guess B.
Hi. You did not enter the text to which this question refers, which makes it impossible for me to tell you how Blake would respond about what makes him what he is. However, I will try to help you as best I can.
Generally speaking, we can consider that what makes you who you are are your experiences. This is because experiences are able to mold and build very personal characteristics of human beings, building a personality and behavior that is intrinsic to each individual.
To answer how you think Blake would answer this question, you will have to read the text it refers to and try to define Blake's thoughts and personality on that question through the text.
Answer:
It means people look up to u and are inspired by the actions or words u say
In modesty is her best quality the nouns are "her"
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.
