Plugged in, but tuned out: the evil influence of ear buds
darrell thomas

i. invasion of the body snatchers:
have you noticed a change in the world around you recently? have you seen how more and more people are walking around with little rectangles in their hands or pockets with long wires plugged straight into their ears? at the grocery store yesterday, i counted at least twenty people completely lost in the music provided by their ever-present cell phones. it’s as if the old science-fiction movie invasion of the body snatchers was coming true; we are being overtaken by pod people. so at the risk of appearing to be a crotchety old man complaining about the “good ole days,” i have to make a stance against the evil influences of the cell phone and ear-bud phenomena on our society.

ii. a rational and well-thought out fear:
now, i am not a luddite; i have no desire to go around smashing up every cell phone or technological gadget in sight. i enjoy and benefit from technological advances just like everyone else. i have a microwave, a television, a lap-top computer, and a gas stove, and i use them all practically every day. i am not accusing people listening to music on their cell phones of having detrimental effects upon our society because i hate music either. i profoundly do not hate music—but i do, ridiculous as it sounds, hate when cell phones are used to block out the real world.

iii. the dangers and distractions of ear buds:
people who have ear buds in their ears simply cannot hear danger approaching. all they hear is the pretend soundtrack of their lives. people walking with ear buds in cannot hear a dog dashing up behind them nor can they hear the footsteps of a thief or murderer sneaking up behind him or her either. people who drive their cars with ear buds plugged in their ears (an act that is considered a traffic violation in many states) cannot hear a child screaming or a horn blowing in warning. cell phones are known to be a factor in many car accidents. i won’t even mention how distracting ear buds plugged into a cell phone can be for a student in a classroom setting! we basically have handed a device to students that invites them to not pay attention to the real world around them.

iv. narcissism:
beyond just being distracting and dangerous, ear buds are detrimental and damaging to society as a whole. ear buds work against a community of listeners. everyone is walking all over the neighborhood, plugged into their latest favorite playlist, but no one is talking to anyone. people who are addicted to their ear buds don’t care about other people. they don’t want community and contact with the real world. ear buds also actively destroy live musicians' ability to make a living with their art form. no one wants live music anymore when they can pay less to hear it instantly and privately anytime they want. if we don’t curb our use of ear buds, all our musicians will languish and no new music will be developed.

v. toss them in the trash!
people refuse to recognize the danger of ear buds because they simply love their ear buds too much to give them up. ear buds are probably doing serious physical damage to their inner eardrums or even the brain itself, but apparently that doesn’t bother anyone. i shudder to think of what the future will be like if we continue on the path of ear bud slavery we’re traveling. next time you’re tempted to plug in and tune out, remember my warning. either we learn to live without ear buds, or we’re going to turn into a nation of complete zombies. is that where you want to live?

which sentence from the article demonstrates a logical flaw?
a) next time you’re tempted to plug in and tune out, remember my warning.
b) people who have ear buds in their ears simply cannot hear danger approaching.
reactivate
c) i won’t even mention how distracting ear buds can be for a student in a classroom setting!
d) people refuse to recognize the danger of ear buds because they simply love their ear buds too much to give them up.

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:

Write an objective summary of the piece by restating the central ideas in your own words.(from nature by ralph waldo emerson.)

Which one event in the story almost caused them to turn back and give up? losing their donkeysthe descent into the volcanorunning into their first dead endlack of water