Answer:
c.
Explanation:
it describes the character in detail
In the General prologue, Chaucer satirizes several characters from various classes and professions. Beginning with the highest class to lower. The first character whom Chaucer introduces is the Prioress who is a nun. She is the first among the female to be described, the first question that evokes in the reader's mind is that such higher religious clergy doesn't take a vow of leading a simple life? Hence, Chaucer satirizes the church, as the members of the church belonged from the upper class. The prioress took advantage from the poor for her own good. She was very well 'dainty' and was well-dressed. Being known as "Madame Eglantyne", she was so pretentious that she hardly knew any words of French.
Therefore, the description of the prioress in the prologue to Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales convey that she aspired to courtly life and behaved like a court lady rather than a nun.
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.
i think between -1/2 or -2
but im very positive for -2
