The second point (that symbols are used to critique the majority culture) are supported by the discussion in P3. So there is no point that is merely “reasserted without support.”

The second point (that symbols are used to critique the majority culture) are supported by the discussion in P3. So there is no point that is merely “reasserted without support.”

The first point (about the character’s heroic transformation) is supported by the discussion in P2. So it’s not correct to say that it’s “reasserted without support.”

The second point (about the book’s critique of the majority culture) isn’t supported by an “extended analogy.” Rather, the author cites to examples of symbols in the book. But the author doesn’t analogize those symbols to anything else. (Kogawa arguably analogizes certain elements of the character’s story to the Christian symbols, but this is different from the author of the passage using an analogy. The author of the passage cites to examples of Kogawa’s use of symbols. The author of the passage does not herself use an analogy in connection with her argument about how Kogawa uses symbols.)

This is the best answer. The author supports the first point (about the character’s heroic transofmration) with an extended analogy to the three-part structure observed by anthropologists. The author supports the second point (about critique of the majority culture) with examples of how Kogawa uses Christian symbols in Obasan.