D. Parallelism
The answer is parallelism because the structure of this excerpt stays consistent throughout these three sentences, it starts off with "it does not" in each sentence which creates a structure.
He glanced apprehensively at him, apprehensively
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 it’s C
I would wait for more people to answer and pick from there.
It's A Good Life is a story by Jerome Bixby.
It is definitely written in Third Person point of view, as the narrator talks about other characters, without him being in the story (First Person) and is not talking to someone who is in the story (Second Person).
It's not too clear if it should be cataloged as Third Person Omniscient or Third Person Limited Point of View, as the narrator seems to have more access to Anthony's thoughts and actions than to any other character (Limited Point of View).
However, Anthony has superhuman powers and can read everyone else's minds, so the narrator states some of their emotions and reactions (Omniscient) but without too much detail.