Shrouded In Contradiction

1- I think the author's clearly reluctant; she announces that hijab is both a gift and a condemnation yet neglects to pick one over the other. The author numbers the benefits of hijab as she says that it veils suggestive flexibility, and it encourages climbing above basic sexual delights and going into a higher otherworldly state. Additionally the fundamental bad marks of hijab as she gives a sample of the strictness of the law masters and the resultant separation. However again she can't choose which exceeds the other. Also toward the end, she comes up to that acknowledgment and just recognizes that hijab ''gives with one hand, brings away with the other''

2- The third passage is similar to an unforeseen development; it negates the thought in the former section and speaks to another thought, which is explained by an account in the accompanying section. It likewise maps out whatever is left of the article, which creates toward that sentence. The author presents the thought in a passage of its own, which engages the reader and proposes that the accompanying story is a proof of that one sentence section. In the event that the sentence was a piece of the previous or the accompanying section it would not have had a huge effect on the readers or set them up for the accompanying change in viewpoint.

3- The author utilizes disagreements between the "Ladies as a part of chadors stand shriveling in the hotness, confronts glimmering with sweat." And the "Ladies in cosmetics and inconvenient heels wear knee-length coat with jeans, their hair daringly uncovered underneath sheer scarves" to demonstrate the two types of dress worn by ladies each of diverse perspectives. The author uses differentiate between the pictures of the two ladies, portraying looks and clothing. She likewise utilizes commas as inserters, which embed additional data about the ladies to make the reader imagine them as though they can see them. The distinction in the ladies' notion on hijab is inferred