Answer:
Examples of evidence for your argument include all of the following EXCEPT
your opinion of the text
Answer:
C, a flashforward
Explanation:
Foreshadowing is subtle. It's a <em>hint</em> towards what might happen. If it explicitly tells you, that's not foreshadowing
An individual's role is hard to define because there are so many roles we take on from day to day. Ultimately however, an individual's role should be personal fulfillment in their inevitable contribution to society. Every member of society has economical roles. Economical roles relate to daily functionality.
Brainliest pls
Answer:
D The light shines and then disappears.
Explanation:
In the poem "On the Shore" by Sarah Chauncey Woolsey, the metaphorical meaning of line 9 is 'the light shines and then disappears.' The poet says that though the light emitted from the lighthouse can be seen from afar, it only lasts for a while.
Through "A moment of bloom, and then it dies ", she says that the light at first shines and blooms like a rose with full vibrant and energy. However, it soon fades away slowly by dawn when the morning light rises from the horizon.
This is why the poet says that light of the lighthouse is short-lived and only comes with its full glory during the night time.
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.
