Being honest | Quizalize

Guru Nanak's teachings on being honest and living a good life

Q1 - Language 1 – Lesson 5: Being Honest

Alexa and Brittany were best friends. They’d known each other since Brittany moved next door in 2nd grade. They hung out almost every day after school… when they were getting along, that is. They were very different people. Alexa did great with her school work, read a lot of books, and took ballet classes. Brittany, on the other hand, would rather play soccer, chat with other kids at school, and rarely sat still for long enough to finish reading a chapter of a book. Often, Alexa and Brittany would play together at the park across the street. They’d play on the equipment, play tag with a group of neighborhood kids, or play soccer. If it was raining outside, they’d go in one of their houses to make crafts, play video games, or do their nails. Some days they could spend hours together without a single problem, but other days they just could not agree on what to do. “Come on, let’s play on the equipment. We’ve played soccer for the last three days!” Alexa said. “They just cut the grass, I love playing soccer when the grass is nice and short. I don’t want to play on the equipment,” Brittany replied. “We always do what you want to do Brittany, it’s my turn to choose.” Alexa was getting frustrated. “Fine, go play on the equipment by yourself, I’m playing soccer, ” Brittany shouted. Grade 5 Reading Comprehension Worksheet Reading and Math for K-5 © www.k5learning.com Alexa left. She was fuming. When she got home, she realized she still had Brittany’s notebook. Well, I’m not giving it back today. I’m too mad at her. Alexa thought. The next day at school, their teacher asked for their notebooks. Brittany didn’t have hers, and asked Mrs. Stone if she could bring it in tomorrow instead. Mrs. Stone let us have one late assignment a month, but Brittany had already used hers. Brittany looked upset, and walked quietly back to her desk. Alexa was having an internal conflict. She knew she should tell Mrs. Stone that she had the notebook, but she was still mad at Brittany for not compromising with her at the park yesterday. When it was time for lunch, Alexa hung back to talk with Mrs. Stone. “Mrs. Stone, I have Brittany’s notebook. I should have said something earlier, but Alexa and I had a problem yesterday, and I’m still mad at her. Would you be able to help us solve our problem?” Alexa asked. “Thank you for being honest, Alexa. I’m sure Brittany will appreciate that you gave me her notebook when you could have made her get another late mark instead. I’m glad you asked for help solving the problem. It’s really hard to solve a problem by yourself when you’re still feeling upset, so this is a good solution.” At recess, Mrs. Stone sat and talked with the girls. They each revealed that they get frustrated with the other person a lot because they don’t always want to do the same things, but they real ized that they never really solved their problem. One of them just always went home. Mrs. Stone helped them realize that maybe they didn’t have to play together every day to be best friends. They decided to just play together a couple times a week, and take turns picking the activity. Alexa and Brittany were hopeful that this would solve a lot of the arguments they’d been having lately!

Create a difficult fill in the blank and short answer quiz for the following vocabulary terms (some words have more than one meaning) Avenue n. an intangible path or approach to something Avid adj. actively interested in or enthusiastic about something Basic adj. relating to the foundation or basis of something Bear v. to have as a characteristic v. to have (a child) v. to bring forth v. to put up with Benevolent adj. kind, generous Bias n. a preconception that prevents objectivity Bittersweet adj. tinged with a feeling of sadness Bolster v. to support, strengthen, or fortify Boost n. an increase or growth v. to increase or make grow Brawl n. an intense, loud fight v. to fight loudly and disruptively Brevity n. the quality of being brief or terse Candid adj. direct, blunt Candor n. the trait of being honest and frank Capitalize v. to use to your advantage Capture v. to trap or take possession of v. to successfully represent or imitate v. to captivate, mesmerize v. to catch or seize

This funny story is about two friends. One is honest but foolish. The other is dishonest but fears law and police. Read about the foolishness they wanted to hide from everyone. of Prakash and Prasanna, who put up placards to tell the world what Prakash lived in a village near Agra. He was an honest man. One day, he found a gold ring on the road. He looked around and shouted loudly, "Whose gold ring is this?" Now, this ring had fallen off from a rich merchant's finger. Fortunately, the rich merchant was nearby and heard Prakash shout. He checked his finger and lo, his ring was missing! He quickly walked up to Prakash and looked at the ring. "Oh, my!" The merchant thought, 'this is my ring. So, he took it from Prakash and put it on his finger. The rich merchant was so impressed with Prakash's honesty that he gave him fifteen silver coins. Prakash had never seen so many silver coins before. He was very happy. At the same time, he was scared that someone might steal the silver coins. He thought he would keep them with a friend, but he realised that, that would not be safe, then he thought that he would put them in a purse and carry the purse with him wherever he went, but he realised that, that too would be unsafe! Suddenly, an idea struck him. He would hide the coins in his little garden! So, he dug a hole in hes ganken and hid the coins in it. He covered the coins with fresh mad. But still he w not at ease. He thought. What if someone comes into my garden and takes away the csins? He could not sleep the whole night. The thought of the coins being stolen nagged him How you think Prakash will be the sims safe? He thought and thinight, and an idea struck him. He went to the market and bought a brush and some paint. With the paint and the brush, he wrote the followitg wonds on a placard: NO MONEY IS HIDDEN HERE and put the placard near the hole where he had hidden the slver coins Some days later, Prasanna, Prakash's friend, came to visit him. He found the door locked and decided to have a stroll in the garden till Prakash came back There, he saw the writing on the placard. He was surprised. He wondered why Prakash had written these words. Soon, he knew the reason. He sat down and began to dig the mund. The mud was loose and soft. He dug out the fresh mud and pushed his hands into the hole. As he did this, his hands touched something hard and cold. He had found the coins! He took the coins and put them in his pockets. He wanted to run home, but realised that someone might find out that he had stolen the coins. The police would catch him and put him in jail. He began to feel anxious and scared Prasanna began to think. An idea flashed in his mind. He took the brush and paint that Prakash had left in the gardem and wrote something on a piece of paper and pasted it un the placard. This is what he wrote: I HAVE NOT STOLEN ANY MONEY FROM THE HOLE IN THE GARDEN ASIAMAN HONESTMAN PRASANNA....

“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.

refreshment (n): (small amounts of food and drink ( Refreshments will be available during the interval.) stimulant (n): a substance which temporarily arouses physiological or organic activity ( Caffeine is a natural stimulant .) reinforcement (n): the act of making sth stronger / (plural) soldiers sent to join an army to make it stronger ( Constructors have been hired to add reinforcement to the foundations of the old bridge.) initiative (n): the ability to make decisions without waiting to be told what to do (Being a successful entrepreneur requires one to have great initiative.) inhibition (n): a shy or nervous feeling that stops you from expressing your real feelings (She drinks alcohol at parties to get over her inhibitions.) initiation (n): a ceremony, ritual, test, or period of instruction with which a new member is admitted to an organization or office (The initiation period for new employees lasts approximately six weeks.) initial (n): the first letter of a name, esp. when used to represent a name (Do you know what Ms Rowling's initials, J and K, stand for?) concise (adj): short and clear, expressing what needs to be said without unnecessary words (She gave a concise overview of the points she was about to make in her speech. ) direct (adj): happening or done without involving other people, actions, etc. in between ( You will only be hired if you have direct experience in this field.) devious (adj): not straightforward, sincere and honest about your intentions or motives; shifty (They came up with a devious plan to overthrow the chairman of the company.) circuitous (adj): not straight or direct (The professor gave a circuitous explanation confusing his students.) diluted (adj): (of a liquid) made weaker or less pure by being mixed with sth else( Orange squash should be diluted with water before it is served.) delicate (adj): easily hurt or destroyed.( This silk shirt is too delicate to put in the washing machine.) desolate (adj): extremely sad and feeling lonely. (After the death of his wife he led a desolate life.) diffused (adj): widely spread or scattered; not concentrated/ wordy ( He spoke in such a diffused manner that it was impossible to take notes on his lecture.) might (n): the power, force, or influence held by a person or group (The captive struggled with all of his might and managed to free himself of the chains.) plot (n): a secret plan made by several people to do sth that is wrong, harmful or not legal, esp. to do damage to a person or a government / a storyline ( The plot of the forthcoming Harry Potter book has yet to be revealed.) glaze (n): a thin clear liquid put on objects before they are finished, to give them a shiny surface ( She mixed sugar and lemon to make the glaze of the cake.) plight (n): an unpleasant condition, esp. serious, sad or difficult one ( Last night's documentary dealt with the plight of political asylum seekers.) comprise (v): to consist of be composed of( The final exam is comprised of three parts.)

Related quizzes

Related quizzes