Question

English assignment @Skittles_5201
@LunyMoony

Answer 1

My computer wont let me open up the file for some reason. It keeps saying it is a lost file

Answer 2

yep and im not good with words at all so to me its kinda hard to do papers like this... i always fail

Answer 3

Read each selection below and then answer the question. It is very important that each answer be written as a paragraph with 6-8 sentences. Be sure that you have a topic sentence and then use specific evidence from the text to support your topic. End with a concluding statement. Use transitions to tie your ideas together. Finally, proofread for grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.


Your name


1.
Selection 1 – We Grow Accustomed to the Dark by Emily wingspaninson

We grow accustomed to the Dark,
When Light is put away,
As when the Neighbor holds the Lamp
To witness her Goodbye.

A Moment—We uncertain step
For newness of the night,
Then fit our Vision to the Dark,
And meet the Road erect.

And so of larger Darknesses,
Those Evenings of the Brain,
When not a Moon disclose a sign,
Or Star, come out, within.

The Bravest grope a little
And sometimes hit a Tree
Directly in the Forehead,
But as they learn to see,

Either the Darkness alters
Or something in the sight
Adjusts itself to Midnight,
And Life steps almost straight.

Question 1:
How does the meaning of darkness change throughout the poem? Given this change, what point about life is wingspaninson attempting to illustrate here? Be sure to discuss specific lines in the poem and what each of those illustrates about "Darkness."







2.
Selection 2 – From The Chicago Tribune – “The Business of Hunger”

America sends about $1.4 billion a year in emergency food aid to needy people around the world through the Food for Peace Program. By law, practically all that aid is produced in the U.S. and shipped by U.S. companies to far-flung places, where it is consumed. Some food donations get sold once they're delivered overseas, to fund development projects.




That's a terribly expensive and inefficient system. The high costs of growing and shipping food here mean fewer people get fed. Delivering huge amounts of U.S. grain and other farm products distorts the local markets where it is delivered. It forces prices down, discouraging local farmers from raising staple crops where the need for food is greatest. Selling U.S. commodities abroad is also an inefficient way to raise money for development projects. Getting the food across the ocean boosts its cost by one-third.

The food program is an agricultural subsidy in disguise. Requiring the purchase of U.S. goods, transported only on U.S. ships, creates profits for American farmers and the agribusiness giants that control shipping. But American taxpayers don't get their money's worth.

Food aid is supposed to help relieve suffering. It's also supposed to help lift poor people out of poverty so they can become self-sufficient.

This program desperately needs to change, but the farm lobby works furiously to protect its vested interests. Hunger is big business, and Food for Peace has been a profit center in the Farm Belt for decades.

We're pleased to see the Obama administration make a run at changing that. The timing is good: Congress is under pressure to pass a long-delayed Farm Bill, the five-year legislation reauthorizing farm subsidy programs. The administration has proposed a modest reform that can save money and feed more people.

Under the plan advanced by Obama, about 45 percent of the food aid in 2014 would be used to buy food produced in the countries where it's consumed. The food could be bought locally in bulk, or individual recipients could receive vouchers or debit cards to purchase what they need.

Food bought locally is typically cheaper to produce and it requires no transoceanic shipping. By this simple step, 2 million to 4 million people could be fed each year. The aid could be delivered as much as 14 weeks faster than it is now, allowing the program to be far more nimble when disaster strikes.

Most other wealthy nations already provide food aid in grant form and decouple it from commercial transactions in the donor country. In-kind food aid is limited to acute local shortages, or situations where local food markets aren't functioning.

In the Obama proposal, more than half of U.S. food aid still would be earmarked for the purchase and transport of U.S. commodities, and shippers would receive a government subsidy. There is no sound financial reason for either subsidy, except as a concession to politics. The farm lobby is powerful. A who's who of farm and food organizations already have petitioned the president to keep the status quo for the sake of "stimulating" farm and transportation industries at home.



So here's a test for Congress, particularly for farm-state Republicans and Democrats. The federal government, thanks to sequestration, is finally seeing some serious belt-tightening. Aid programs such as Food for Peace aren't immune from the pressure on spending. They, like all government programs, have to prove they can be done with maximum efficiency.

So, members, take your pick: This reform can feed millions more people at the same cost to taxpayers, feed the same number of people at significantly lower cost, or find some comfortable mix of both goals. But members of Congress who block this reform will expose themselves as wasteful spenders.

As it is, U.S. agriculture interests will still benefit greatly from the compromise plan on the table, on top of the enormous agriculture subsidies the federal government cannot afford but continues to pay.

Food aid can help to lift developing nations out of poverty, promote political stability and economic growth. It must be structured efficiently to achieve its objective. As is, the Food for Peace program doesn't work well, except for the benefit of a privileged few. Reforming food aid would enable America to do justice to a large taxpayer outlay — and to save lives.


Question 2:
In this article, the author expresses his opinion that the Food for Peace program needs to be reformed. He gives many reasons for this. How could he make his argument stronger? What other information needs to be included?

Answer 4

Im sorry idk how to do this

Answer 5

@iGreen

Answer 6

its okay but thanks for trying @Skittles_5201

Answer 7

no prob. anything for you @lexikaylynn

Answer 8

@trinajoy i never asked for your help so please don't comment

Answer 9

thanks dear ^_^