The sum of a number and three

Activity No. 4: Algebra Vocabulary Categorization Challenge

Activity No. 4 : 8 Different Types of Questions

ACTIVITY NO. 4 IN PR1 MOD 8,9,10

Activity No. 4 (Q2M5)

ACTIVITY IN MODULE NO 4 COLLIGATIVE PROP. OF SOLN

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Here’s your **edited version** of the activity, now focused on **Shirley Jackson’s *“The Lottery”*** and **past and present participles**, while keeping the fun “Great Grammar Magician” game theme: --- ### 🎩 THE GREAT GRAMMAR MAGICIAN: “THE LOTTERY SPELL!” 🍀 It seems like you already know how **past and present participles** can transform simple verbs into more descriptive and expressive words. Now, it’s time to show your magical grammar powers and help the Great Grammar Magician complete her enchanting performance inspired by *“The Lottery”* by Shirley Jackson! --- ### 🌼 **THE LOTTERY SPELL!** **Directions:** The class will be divided into two groups, and each group will work together to help the Great Grammar Magician finish her magical act! Each group will receive **three magic flags** that can be used as advantages during the game: 🟩 **Green Flag** – Use for a clue about the question. 🟨 **Yellow Flag** – Use to look at the question first and decide whether to answer it or choose another one. 🟦 **Blue Flag** – Use to get another chance to answer the same question. The goal is to earn the **highest points** as a group. The first representative to raise their hand gets to choose a question to answer. There will be **six questions**, representing the **six stones** drawn during the “lottery.” Each stone contains a **Magic Spell Card** with a question your group must answer correctly to earn a point. --- ### 🪄 **MAGIC SPELL QUESTIONS** **1. Remembering** **Question:** Who is the author of *“The Lottery”?* **Expected Answer:** Shirley Jackson. --- **2. Understanding** **Question:** What is *“The Lottery”* mainly about? **Expected Answer:** It’s about a small town that follows a cruel tradition of holding a lottery where one person is chosen to be sacrificed. --- **3. Applying** **Question:** Identify a **past or present participle** used in *“The Lottery.”* Explain its function in the sentence. **Expected Answer:** Example: *“The children assembled first, of course.”* — “assembled” is a **past participle** used to describe what the children did before the lottery began. --- **4. Analyzing** **Question:** How does Shirley Jackson use participles to create suspense or describe actions in the story? **Expected Answer:** Participles like “gathered,” “watching,” or “whispered” make the actions more vivid and help build tension in the story. --- **5. Evaluating** **Question:** Do you think the townspeople’s calm behavior (described with participles like “smiling,” “talking,” “laughing”) makes the story more shocking? Why or why not? **Expected Answer:** (Open-ended) Yes, because the ordinary actions make the violent ending more disturbing / No, because it just shows how normal the ritual is to them. --- **6. Creating** **Question:** Write your own short two-line description using **past or present participles** to show tension or fear in a situation like the one in *“The Lottery.”* **Expected Answer:** (Open-ended) Example: *Shaking hands held the paper tight.* *The crowd waited, holding their breath.* --- ### 🪶 **Tie-Breaker Question** **Question:** If you were in *“The Lottery,”* what would you be doing as the black box was brought out? Use at least one participle in your answer. **Expected Answer:** (Open-ended; checks creativity and grammar) Example: *Standing in silence, I would watch the slips being drawn, my heart pounding.* --- Would you like me to make this version **visually formatted for a classroom printout** (e.g., with bold headers, emojis, and clear section boxes)?

Title (Slide 0): "Digging Deeper: The Truth About Tillage" Subtitle: How turning the soil affects plants, microbes, and the planet Slide 1: What Is Tillage? Tilling the soil means digging, turning, and loosening it using tools or machines. It's a common farming practice to prepare the land before planting. Slide 2: Why Do Farmers Till? Tillage is usually done before planting to: • Soften and aerate the soil • Mix in nutrients • Remove weeds • Bury crop residues for decomposition and fertility Slide 3: Tools Used for Tillage Farmers use tools like: • Ploughs: Cut deep into the soil • Harrows: Break up clumps and smooth the surface Slide 4: Ploughs vs. Harrows • Ploughs: Used first, go deep, lift and flip soil • Harrows: Used after ploughs, work on the surface to break clumps and level the soil Slide 5: Types of Tillage Systems From most to least soil disturbance: • Conventional Tillage: Deep ploughing • Minimum Tillage: Light disturbance • Conservation Tillage: Only disturb seed zone, keep residues on top • Zero Tillage (No-Till): Plant directly into undisturbed soil Slide 6: Problem 1 – Soil Erosion Tillage removes protective cover, exposing soil to wind and rain. Result: topsoil—the most fertile layer—is easily washed or blown away. Slide 7: Problem 2 – Disruption of Soil Life Soil is a living ecosystem! • Worms, fungi, and bacteria help aerate soil and release nutrients • Tillage destroys their habitat, reducing fertility and soil health Slide 8: Problem 3 – Loss of Soil Structure Healthy soil has pores for air, water, and roots. Tillage breaks the sponge-like structure, and soil compacts over time—like flattening it into a pancake. Hard soil = poor plant growth. Slide 9: Problem 4 – Decreased Organic Matter Microbes "eat" organic matter through aerobic respiration (using O₂ and releasing CO₂). Tillage adds oxygen, microbes speed up, and burn through the soil’s “pantry” of organic matter—leaving it empty and poor. Slide 10: Problem 5 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Faster decomposition = more CO₂ released. Tillage boosts microbial activity, which increases carbon dioxide emissions—contributing to climate change. ✅ Conclusion (Slide 11): 🌱 Tillage: A Double-Edged Tool Tillage can help prepare the soil and control weeds—but it comes at a cost. Over time, repeated tilling can strip away organic matter, destroy soil life, and release greenhouse gases. It's like spending all your savings for quick results—and being left with nothing for the future. The smarter path? Use reduced or no-till methods that protect soil health, keep carbon in the ground, and support long-term farming success.

hysical features of Southeast Asia The physiography of Southeast Asia has been formed to a large extent by the convergence of three of the Earth’s major crustal units: the Eurasian, Indian-Australian, and Pacific plates. The land has been subjected to a considerable amount of faulting, folding, uplifting, and volcanic activity over geologic time, and much of the region is mountainous. There are marked structural differences between the mainland and insular portions of the region. Mainland Southeast Asia The mainland is characterized by a series of generally north–south-trending mountain ranges separated by a number of major river valleys and their associated deltas. In many ways these ranges resemble ribs in a fan, where the interstices are deep trenches carved by the rivers. Although the mainland as a whole is similar in a structural sense, its various geologic components and the time periods of their orogenic (mountain-building) episodes differ. Much of the region has been affected by the gradual, continuing collision of the Indian subcontinent with the Eurasian Plate over roughly the past 50 million years, an event that—with diminishing intensity from west to east—has been responsible for deforming the land. Nonetheless, mainland Southeast Asia is relatively stable geologically, with no active or recently active volcanoes and, except in the northwest and north, little seismic activity. The ranges fan out southward from the southeastern corner of the Plateau of Tibet, where they are tightly spaced. A major rib of this system extends through the entire western margin of Myanmar (Burma); describing an elongated letter S, it consists of (from north to south) the Pātkai Range, Nāga Hills, Chin Hills, and Arakan Mountains. Farther to the south the same rib emerges from beneath the sea to become the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India. Another major system extends along a straight north-south axis from eastern Myanmar east of the Salween River through northwestern Thailand to south of the Isthmus of Kra on the Malay Peninsula. It consists of a series of elongated blocks rather than one continuous ridge. The core of these blocks is granite, which has intruded into previously folded and faulted limestone and sandstone. The altitudes of the ranges diminish from above 8,000 feet (2,440 meters) on the Chinese border in the north to below 4,000 feet on the Isthmus of Kra, and the ranges are spread farther apart toward the south. The easternmost major mountain feature on the mainland is the Annamese Cordillera (Chaîne Annamitique) in Laos and Vietnam. In the portion between Laos and Vietnam, the chain forms a nearly straight spine of ranges from northwest to southeast, with a steep face rising from the South China Sea to the east and a more gradual slope to the west. The mountains thin out considerably south of Laos and become asymmetrical in form. The upland zone is characterized by a number of plateau remnants. The rather neat fanlike pattern of the mountain ranges is interrupted occasionally by several old blocks of strata that have been folded, faulted, and deeply dissected. These ancient massifs now form either low platforms or high plateaus. The westernmost of these, the Shan Plateau of eastern Myanmar, measures some 250 miles (400 km) from north to south and 75 miles from east to west and has an average elevation of about 3,000 feet. The largest of these features is the Korat Plateau in eastern Thailand and west-central Laos. This area actually is more of a low platform, which on average is only a few hundred feet above the floodplains of the surrounding rivers. It consists of a string of hills that direct surface drainage eastward to the Mekong River. The hills range in elevation from 500 to 2,000 feet, with the highest altitudes occurring near the southwestern rim. The broad river valleys between the uplands and the even wider deltas at the southernmost points contain most of the mainland’s lowland areas. These regions generally are covered with alluvial sediments that support much of the mainland’s cultivation and, in turn, most of its population centers. The most extensive coastal lowland is the lower Mekong basin, which encompasses most of Cambodia and southern Vietnam. The Cambodian portion is a broad, bowl-shaped area lying just above sea level, with numerous hill outcrops jutting above the landscape; at its center is a large freshwater lake, the Tonle Sap. To the south the river’s vast, flat delta occupies the entire southern tip of Vietnam. Outside the river deltas, the coastal lowlands are little more than narrow strips between the mountains and the sea, except around the southern half of the Malay Peninsula. The Malay Peninsula stretches south for some 900 miles from the head of the Gulf of Thailand (Siam) to Singapore and thus extends the mainland into insular Southeast Asia. The narrowest point, the Isthmus of Kra (about 40 miles wide), also roughly divides the peninsula into two parts: the long linear mountain ranges of the northern part described above give way just south of the isthmus to blocks of short, parallel ranges aligned north-south, so that the southern portion trends to the southeast and becomes much wider. In areas such as the west coast between southern Thailand and northwestern Malaysia, distinctive karst-limestone landscapes have developed. Peaks on the peninsula range from 5,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes