Nepalvisit

              Questions and Answers of 'The Case Against Air Conditioning ' Comprehension 1.      What does Cox think is wrong with air conditioning? Ans: Cox says that air conditioning uses a lot of energy; running air conditioners burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases that raise global temperatures, which in turn increases the need for air conditioning. He believes that air conditioning should be used more sparingly. 2.     According to Cox, what would be the results of a largely “A.C.-free Washington” (3)? Does the scenario he outlines apply only to Washington, DC? Only to urban areas? Does it apply to other parts of the countries as well? Ans: cox says that reduced air conditioning use in Washington would result in more flexible work schedules (business, including governmental ones, closing and adjusting for heat), renovation for buildings to better accommodate heat, decreased use of heat-generating   appliances, and increased socialization resulting f

  The Case Against Air Conditioning The author’s message is that A.C. keeps us inside and away from interacting with one another. We shouldn’t be trapped inside everyday but we should be out and about to enjoy the world around us. This essay is about why Washington/America should stop using air conditioners in everyday life with the expectation of hospitals, archives, and cooling centers. The author supports his argument by providing examples of wat Washington would look like without air conditioners at work, at home, and around town. Cox’s starts out with using modern day examples of people using air conditioning to beat the Heat and why it is bad. Cox’s wants readers to turn down, turn off, or just complete eliminate air conditioning use. He believes that it will benefit us by making neighborhoods more friendly, laws more lax, and climate change less of an issue. People in Washington didn’t have to experience extreme heat because their houses were equipped with air condition

  Questions and Answers of ‘My Mother Never Worked’ Comprehension 1.      What kind of work did Martha Smith do while her children were growing up? List     some of the chores she performed.        Martha Smith worked very hard at raising her children, doing farm chores, and               maintaining a household, but she did not work outside the home for pay-the only              kind of work recognized by the government.   2.      Why aren’t Martha Smith’s survivors entitled to a death benefit when their mother dies?     According to the government, Martha Smith is not eligible for a death benefit because she was never employed.   3.      How does the government define work?       The government defines work as an activity performed for compensation.   Purpose and Audience   1.      What point is the writer trying to make? Why do you suppose her thesis is never       explicitly stated?       The essay’s thesis is that although Martha Smith did not work out

  My Mother Never Worked   In this narrative essay, Bonnie Smith Yackel tells the story of the sacrifice made by the millions of the homemakers whose works have not been recognized both by the society and the government. Smith- Yackel challenges the government laws that grant society security benefits to the survivors of those who worked as wage earners. According to the federal law, a woman who is a homemaker (works at home) who has never been a wage earner is eligible for social security benefits only through the earning of her deceased husband. The main idea or thesis of this essay is that although Martha Smith didn’t work outside the home, the works she did should be considered valuable enough to entitle her to social security benefits. Hence, the essayist considers the laws regarding social security as injustice, discriminatory and biased, and thus they must be changed or amended to accommodate those homemakers like Martha Smith. Martha smith, the author’s mother, worked ver