Using 'used to' and 'would' for the past tense

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)?

Earth's History. All the processes that have been discussed require long periods of time to create a noticeable change on Earth's surface. You can just imagine how long it would take to create an oceanS as vast as the Pacific Ocean if the ocean floor moves only at about 10 cm/year. It is then important to know the history of Earth to learn the complexities of its past and be able to use it to understand the present. Just like learning the history of a country that requires one to read a lot of books, learning the history of Earth involves studying a lot of rocks. Rocks, especially sedimentary rocks, contain a lot of information about Earth's past. It holds the key to most of the geologic processes that happened on Earth and the key to uncovering how life on Earth evolved. But these discoveries are worthless if there is no time perspective. Thus, one of the most important contributions of geologists to mankind is the geologic time scale, which holds a history that is exceedingly long.The geologic time scale divides the history of Earth into different blocks of time by using relative dating. Since geologists use rocks to understand Earth's history, dating does not give accurate numerical dates, it only tells that an event preceded the relative dating places these rocks in their proper sequence of formation. But relative other. This method is still widely used today, alongside a more accurate method called absolute dating, which uses radioactive elements. With relative and absolute dating. geologists can trace the history of Earth. Relative Dating. Relative dating requires one to know the basic principles such as law of super-position, principle of original horizontality, principle of cross-cutting relationships, and unconformities.Law of Superposition The law of superposition is the most basic principle in relative dating. It states that in an undeformed sequence of sedimentary rock, the layers found at the top are the youngest rocks and the layers at the bottom are the oldest. It may seem too obvious, but this principle has only been clearly stated in 1669 by the Danish anatomist, geologist, and priest, Nicolaus Steno. Principle of Original Horizontality Along with the law of superposition, Steno stated that an undeformed sequence is the one where the layers are still in a horizontal position. This follows the principle of original horizontality, which states that sediments are deposited horizontally. Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships The principle of cross-cutting relationships determines which events occurred first depending on which rocks are affected. The geologic layer that cuts another is younger than the layer it cuts across.Unconformities Rock layers that have not been interrupted are considered conformable. These sites represent spans of geologic time. But there is no place on Earth that has a complete conformable stratum since external and internal processes have always interrupted the deposition of the sediments. These breaks in the record of the rock strata are called unconformities. Using unconformities, geologic events are determined. There are three basic types of unconformities angular unconformity, disconformity, and nonconformity. Angular unconformity is characterized by having tilted or folded sedimentary rocks below younger, horizontal layers of rock. Disconformity is determined where there are missing parallel rock layers. Erosion takes place and removes the younger top layers and then deposition would once again happen. Nonconformity is characterized by an igneous or metamorphic rock found below a sedimentary rock. Figure 3-13. Three basic types of unconformities Using these principles for relative dating, one can determine the order of events However, relative dating does not give a time element as to when they happened. Absolute Dating For a much more accurate method of determining the history of Earth, geologists make use of absolute dating. This method uses unstable elements to determine the exact age of rocks. Isotopes are elements that have the same number of protons but different number of neutrons. Most isotopes are stable but some may be unstable. This is because the forces that bind the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the isotope are not strong enough to hold them together, resulting in a radioactive decay, The unstable isotopes are called radioactive isotopes or parent isotopes. When these parent isotopes undergo radioactive decay, new isotopes, known as daughter products, are formed. The time it takes for one-half of the nuclei in the sample to decay is called half-life. This amount of time is fixed for each kind of radioactive isotope no matter what physical conditions it is subjected to. The ratio of parent daughter isotope determines how many half-lives have passed. If it is 1:1, then one half-life has passed; if it is 1:3, then two half-lives have passed; and if 1:7, then three half-lives have passed, and so on. Therefore, using the concept of half-life and parent-daughter ratio, geologists can determine the exact age of the sample. This method is called radiometric dating. It uses five radioactive isotopes to determine the age of rocks. For dating rocks that are about a million years old, rubidium-87, thorium-232, and the two isotopes of uranium (U-238 and U-235) are used. The fifth radioactive isotope is potassium-40, which has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. With these radioactive elements, determining the accurate age of rocks becomes easier. For dating events that are more recent, radiocarbon dating is used. This method uses carbon-14. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and can be used to date back events up to 75000 years. All organisms contain a small amount of carbon-14, which is proportional with the amount of carbon-12. When an organism dies, the carbon-14 decays and is no longer replaced. The amount of carbon-14 left in the sample is then compared to the amounts of carbon-12 present, and radiocarbon dates can then be determined. This method has been particularly useful for anthropologists, archeologists, historians, and geologists for events that are much more recent.Fossils Aside from rocks, geologists also use the remains of living organisms in understanding Earth's history. Some fossils are formed from parts of an organism (body fossil), while some provide signs or clues as to which life-forms were present at that time (Frace fossils). Fossils contain a lot of information about the past the kind of organisms that have lived, the environment where organisms lived, and the evolution organisms underwent as their environment changed. However, not all organisms turned into fossils, therefore, scientists cannot learn everything about the past using fossils alone. There are also fossils that are used to determine the age of a rock. These are index fossils and these are only found in rocks of a particular age. The organisms that turned into index fossils have a relatively short life-spanning from a few million years to a few hundred million years. Index fossils are also found in most of the common rocks around the world, which makes them easier to identify.The methods used for dating the age of rocks are also used for fossils. Absolute dating is more commonly used since it can give exact numerical dates for the age, but relative dating can also be used to determine which fossils are older.

“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.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes