In Ruskin Bond's story 'The Cherry Tree', why was Rakesh so surprised and excited when he first saw the twig in the corner of the garden?

He had forgotten about the seed he planted and did not expect it to grow.

He thought someone had planted a different flower there.

The tree had already grown large enough to bear fruit.

He believed that cherry trees could only grow in the valley, not on the hill.

He were upset that the goats had eaten his favorite plant.

Which of the following events posed the greatest threat to the survival of the young cherry tree in its first year?

A goat entering the garden and eating all the leaves.

Grandfather cutting it down to clear space for a vegetable patch.

A heavy snowstorm that buried the entire garden.

Rakesh pulling it out of the ground by mistake.

The lack of water during the long summer months.

At the end of the story, what does Rakesh mean when he asks, "Is this what it feels like to be God?"

He is in awe of the power of nature and his small role in creating a living thing.

He is proud that he is the only person who can harvest the cherries.

He believes he has gained magical powers to control the weather.

He thinks he is more important than his grandfather because he owns the tree.

He is expressing his desire to rule over the garden and the forest.

In the story "The Cherry Tree," what is the primary reason Grandfather tells Rakesh to plant the cherry seed rather than throwing it away?

He believes that seeds are only lucky if they are put to use by being planted.

The soil in the garden was lacking nutrients and needed a tree.

He wants Rakesh to learn how to farm professional crops.

He was afraid that birds would choke on the seed if left on the ground.

He wanted to sell the cherries at the local bazaar for a profit.

What characteristic of the cherry tree most impressed Rakesh and his grandfather as the years passed?

Its resilience and determination to grow despite several setbacks.

The fact that it remained green even during the heaviest snowfalls.

The expensive price they could get for the wood of the tree.

The ability of the tree to protect the house from monsoon winds.

The fast rate at which it produced sweet, edible fruit.

What happened to the cherry tree when a woman was cutting the grass with a scythe?

The tree was accidentally cut in two by the blade.

The tree's branches were trimmed to help it grow faster.

The tree was uprooted and moved to a different location.

The tree was hidden under a pile of cut grass to keep it warm.

The tree was protected by the woman using a small fence.

How did the cherries from the tree taste when Rakesh first tried them in the final stages of the story?

They were quite sour and a bit astringent.

They were the sweetest cherries he had ever eaten.

They were poisonous and made him feel ill.

They had no taste at all because they were too small.

They tasted like honey and wild berries.

Which seasonal phenomenon in the Himalayan foothills caused the most damage to the cherry tree's leaves after it had survived the goat and the scythe?

The arrival of a caterpillar which began to eat the young leaves.

The heavy monsoon rains that washed away the topsoil.

A sudden forest fire that spread from the nearby hills.

A swarm of locusts that covered the entire garden.

A severe drought that lasted for three full years.

Which specific weather pattern in the Himalayan foothills is mentioned to have made the cherry tree's survival difficult during its early years?

The monsoon rains and the following cold winter.

A volcanic eruption causing ash to cover the garden.

A long-term desert heatwave with no humidity.

A tropical hurricane coming from the ocean.

A flood that caused the entire hill to slide down.

Which of the following best describes Rakesh's relationship with the tree as it grew taller than him?

He felt a deep sense of accomplishment and kinship with the tree because they grew up together.

He stopped caring for the tree once it was big enough to survive on its own.

He became jealous of the tree because it was stronger than he was.

He felt the tree was a burden because it required constant protection from birds.

He was disappointed that the tree did not provide enough shade for his grandfather.

The Cherry Tree | Quizalize

The Split Cherry Tree page 39-42

Review questions for the Split Cherry Tree ' כיתה י

Can you make me a 40 question quiz from the following information? he story of coffee has all the elements of a bestselling novel, such as chance happenings, luck, political intrigue, the high seas and great wealth. With research, you will find many stories and dates when this happened and dates when that happened. Often these stories and dates will conflict with each other. Whatever the history, coffee has become one of the most important trading commodities in the world. Being second only to oil and being one of the most popular beverages, behind tea, beer and of course, water. Coffee growing is a very labour-intensive operation and it provides important trading income for many nations and people throughout the world. The most famous story about the origin of coffee is the story of Kaldi a goat herder from Ethiopia. It is said he noticed that his goats became very active after eating the red berries of a certain plant. He tried a few himself and noticed the stimulating effect of the berries. It is then said that monks started drinking a beverage made from the berries to help stay awake for the prayers; this would have been around 1000 AD. Over the next few hundred years the Arab world started to use the berries as a beverage and coffee was born. In those early years, coffee was mostly confined to the Muslim world with the export of coffee plants and seeds banned. But coffee could not be hidden forever so eventually coffee was introduced to Constantinople and coffee houses were opened in 1475. European traders then brought coffee back to Europe by approximately 1600. At first, coffee was met with a hostile reaction, with some Christians calling it the ‘Devil’s Drink’ and asking Pope Vincent III to ban the beverage. He tried coffee and liked it so much that he is claimed to have said “This beverage is so delicious that it would be a sin to let only misbelievers drink it! Let’s defeat Satan by blessing this beverage, which contains nothing objectionable to a Christian!” Coffee shops sprung up in every city and became an important social and networking place to meet. This tradition continues today with the French word for coffee being ‘Café’. Coffee is said to have changed the social fabric of society by providing a popular non-alcoholic alternative to beer and wine. For the first time in recorded history people were not drunk all the time. Coffee today is grown and enjoyed worldwide and is one of the few crops that small farmers in third-world countries can profitably export. The coffee plant is a tree that is pruned to grow to a height of approximately three metres. This makes cultivating the beans easier as most of the beans are handpicked. The plant has white flowers similar to jasmine that grow in clusters and set to become red cherry-like fruit; beneath the red skin are two pips which are the coffee beans. Because the berries ripen at varying times the fruit must be handpicked to select only those beans ripe for harvest. This requires the picker to pick from the same plant many times and is very labour intensive. This is why coffee is grown in developing countries where labour is cheaper and foreign income is needed. Coffee plants grow best in a mountain tropical climate between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. This mountainous land is another reason why machine picking is very difficult and hand picking is preferred. There are two main species of coffee grown today: Coffee Arabica. Coffee Robusta. Robusta grows at lower altitudes and produces a larger crop than Arabica; therefore, it is cheaper to produce Arabica is the most popular and generally considered to give superior flavour. Most Robusta is grown in Asia and Africa. About 75% of coffee grown is Arabica and 25% Robusta. Robusta is more often used as a blend with Arabica rather than a standalone coffee; used as a filler coffee in the production of instant or to add extra caffeine to an Arabica coffee for the European markets. Robusta is higher in caffeine than Arabica, but the flavour is not as palatable as the more popular Arabica bean. Coffee is produced in about 60 countries throughout the world but production is dominated by three countries producing approximately half the crop: Brazil, Vietnam and Colombia.

Didi’s dentist Didi eats ten tater tots and tomato soup with toast. Didi eats two cherry tarts. Didi drinks a milkshake. Didi eats delicious donuts. Didi drinks a cup of tea. Didi doesn’t brush her teeth. Didi goes to the dentist.

Bunny’s Birthday Party Bunny will have a birthday party. Bunny's mommy will make a birthday cake. Bunny is very happy! Bunny's family prepares for the party. Mommy makes the cake. The baby bunny blows balloons. Mommy puts a cherry and a berry on the cake. The baby bunny adds some candy. It's a dandy cake! Bunny eats her birthday cake. The baby bunny eats some cake too. Mommy plays some bunny music.

“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.

The Constitution of the United States

CLOTHES ACCORDING TO THE WEATHER

Related quizzes

Related quizzes