This question ("Doubts concerning Chapter 15 of Persuasion by Jane Austen") was closed today as "too broad". I would like to invite the close voters to reconsider.
The reasons that I think the question is not "too broad" are:
It does not require much, if any, research to answer: a little knowledge of the plot of Persuasion, and some familiarity with Regency-era English vocabulary, are all that are needed. Questions on this site can be far broader and still be answerable, for example.
A good answer can be quite short: indeed, Spagirl had the essential points in a four-line comment.
The features that may have misled the close voters are:
The question is very long. (But its length is misleading, since it largely consists of quotations from the text. For someone composing an answer, the length and detail are helpful, since the difficulties the OP is having in following the text are clearly indicated.)
There are six numbered sub-questions. Shouldn't these be split into six separate questions? (But again, this is misleading, since all six questions are about the interpretation of a single passage, and so the answers are connected: in this case they are all about the interpretation of Mr. Elliot's renewal of acquaintance with his family following the death of his wife. Having multiple questions about the meaning of a single passage is something that we should expect to be commonplace—if someone is having difficulty with the language of a text, whether due to lack of language fluency, or unfamiliarity with a technique like free indirect speech, then this difficulty is likely to show up more than once.)
Possibly the close voters felt that it should be the job of the OP to make all this clear, but I think that when the OP is a new user, and possibly not 100% fluent in English, this is unrealistic to expect, and it would be a good idea to err on the side of being welcoming.
For comparison, a case where I think the "too broad" judgement was quite correct, was this question ("How much real-life insight about espionage into spy novels?") which a monograph would hardly suffice to answer.
Update I edited the question to try to make it more acceptable, but since I thought it was fine as it was, it is hard for me to know exactly what changes are needed to propitiate the close voters.