18 ramy The Footprints of Time
by Charles Bancroft
(excerpt from "Section VI. The Roman Republic")
The Romans, more than any other people of ancient times, understood how to establish a well-ordered state. Respect for order and law among
them was very great. The idea of a government with a definite constitution, which the rulers should always respect, and which should be an
adequate protection to the people against oppression, had never occurred to any of the Asiatic nations
... She [Rome] had a genius for producing and preserving a constitution, adding to it by slow degrees, maintaining checks and balances that
preserved the machinery in working order, and rendered it capable of producing the most valuable results that were possible in those times. To
rule was her passion. She was not wanting in intelligence, but it was the homely prudence of common life, the skill to adapt means to ends. Of all
the nations, she was the first to carry organization into every part of her government, and conduct everything by inexorable system and order. If
Rome was resolved to rule others, she was no less resolved to rule herself. The mission of Greece was in the domain of thought, to develop the
intellectual capabilities of mankind. That of Rome also required intelligence, but of a lower and more material kind. She was to teach mankind to
follow an orderly development, to introduce system, to prevent ruinous clashing of interests, to teach respect for law. Greece taught the world to
think to purpose; Rome to govern with effect. Each served an important purpose.
Which statement best expresses the central idea of the passage?
ОА
The Romans were superior to the Greeks in many ways, including government.
The Romans valued organization and order in all parts of the government.
ОВ.
Ос.
The Greeks valued intelligence more than the Romans.
D.
The Greeks valued the intellectual capabilities of people.
Reset
Next

Which theme is best supported by the descriptive detail in this passage from my antonia

Memories of a memory have you ever witnessed something amazing, shocking or surprising and found when describing the event that your story seems to change the more you tell it? have you ever experienced a time when you couldn't really describe something you saw in a way that others could understand? if so, you may understand why some experts think eyewitness testimony is unreliable as evidence in scientific inquiries and trials. new insights into human memory suggest human memories are really a mixture of many non-factual things. first, memory is vague. imagine your room at home or a classroom you see every day. most likely, you could describe the room very generally. you could name the color of the walls, the floors, the decorations. but the image you describe will never be as specific or detailed as if you were looking at the actual room. memory tends to save a blurry image of what we have seen rather than specific details. so when a witness tries to identify someone, her brain may recall that the person was tall, but not be able to say how tall when faced with several tall people. there are lots of different kinds of "tall." second, memory uses general knowledge to fill in gaps. our brains reconstruct events and scenes when we remember something. to do this, our brains use other memories and other stories when there are gaps. for example, one day at a library you go to quite frequently, you witness an argument between a library patron and one of the librarians. later, when telling a friend about the event, your brain may remember a familiar librarian behind the desk rather than the actual participant simply because it is recreating a familiar scene. in effect, your brain is combining memories to you tell the story. third, your memory changes over time. it also changes the more you retell the story. documented cases have shown eyewitnesses adding detail to testimony that could not have been known at the time of the event. research has also shown that the more a witness's account is told, the less accurate it is. you may have noticed this yourself. the next time you are retelling a story, notice what you add, or what your brain wants to add, to the account. you may also notice that you drop certain details from previous tellings of the story. with individual memories all jumbled up with each other, it is hard to believe we ever know anything to be true. did you really break your mother's favorite vase when you were three? was that really your father throwing rocks into the river with you when you were seven? the human brain may be quite remarkable indeed. when it comes to memory, however, we may want to start carrying video cameras if we want to record the true picture. part a and part b below contain one fill-in-the-blank to be used for all three question responses. your complete response must be in the format a, b, c including the letter choice, commas, and a space after the commas. part a: which of the following best explains why memories from childhood are unreliable? fill in blank 1 using a, b, or c. our brains add details and general knowledge to childhood memories. our brains are not as reliable as video cameras are. our brains create new stories to make the past more interesting. part b select one quotation from the text that supports your answer to part a. add your selection to blank 1 using e, f, or g. but the image you describe will never be as specific or detailed as if you were looking at the actual room. when a witness tries to identify someone, her brain may recall that the person was tall, but not be able to say how tall. to do this, our brains use other memories and other stories when there are gaps. select one quotation from the text that supports your answer to part a. add your selection to blank 1 using h, i, or j. documented cases have shown eyewitnesses adding detail to testimony that could not have been known at the time of the event. with individual memories all jumbled up with each other, it is hard to believe we ever know anything to be true. when it comes to memory, however, we may want to start carrying video cameras if we want to record the true picture answer for blank 1:

Samuel johnson believed that literature should appeal mainly to the scholar, to him the common man, to teach him the common man, to teach and him the king and the parliament