Answer:
The “it” in the excerpt possibly refers to the neighborhood that the highway now conceals. However, in a figurative sense, the “it” could refer to the speaker’s culture. This culture was anaspect of her life that she wasn’t too proud of while growing up, but now, as an adult, she misses and respects it. Because of this, the “it” also represents the speaker’s identity.
Explanation:
from coursehero
Answer:
To be free has a lot of meaning, one could be, be free of responsibility or choice. In my opinion to be free means, to have the ability to do something without someone questioning my actions or try to stop me from doin g my actions. I can learn whatever I want and think how I want. I can talk how I want and have my own opinions without predijuice or bias against me. Be free is a very open statement that can be taken from a very moderate view of everyone has an opinion and no one can put you in jail for it to a very extremism view, like the book The Giver, where everyone doesn't make choices and the world is the same. Everyone would be free of this modern society in that book and be free from the burden of making money, hard choices, or how to live under weird conditions. Everyone follows instructions on how to live their daily lives. How to work, how to live, how to do most things. A book dictates what happens to criminals who break their laws people are free from deciding almost everything. Who they live, who they work with, what they learn, or how they learn. That is the term 'be free' in extremism. That is what it means to be free.
I think it's A. It is definally not the climax as this happens when Beowulf kills the monster. It's not the resolution either as it is the first part of the text. Also, exposition seems a little unrelated.
Speare has been more feted in print than ever, in the mainstream as well as in the overflowing and sometimes murky underground river of academic publications. "Enough!" we may well cry (as we sometimes cry at the unending proliferation of productions of the plays). Not, however, in the case of Sir Frank Kermode, whose profoundly conceived and elegantly executed Shakespeare's Language (2000) was a complex but luminous contribution to the understanding of the greatest single body of dramatic work in any language, one of the most refreshing in recent times; any new commentary from him on the subject is eagerly awaited. Despite a brief flirtation with structuralism, he is no grand theorist. Instead, he is that rather old-fashioned phenomenon: a
