Arrowheads, which are ancient\r\nhunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both\r\nas artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States\r\ndate back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to\r\nwalk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring\r\nplanting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces\r\nof wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped\r\nweapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a\r\ntriangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the\r\ntip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and\r\nera of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of\r\nthe arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden\r\npiece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the\r\nshaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow\r\nat prey.
Indian arrowheads are important\r\nartifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)\r\nclues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,\r\nthey can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native\r\nAmerican groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,\r\nrock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the\r\nhunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out\r\nhunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found\r\nalong riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources\r\nto sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,\r\nriverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and\r\nactive riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces\r\nof history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the\r\nlife of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are\r\nsymbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
Which of the\r\nfollowing would be the best title for this passage?
Arrowheads, which are ancient\r\nhunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both\r\nas artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States\r\ndate back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to\r\nwalk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring\r\nplanting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces\r\nof wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped\r\nweapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a\r\ntriangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the\r\ntip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and\r\nera of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of\r\nthe arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden\r\npiece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the\r\nshaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow\r\nat prey.
Indian arrowheads are important\r\nartifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)\r\nclues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,\r\nthey can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native\r\nAmerican groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,\r\nrock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the\r\nhunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out\r\nhunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found\r\nalong riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources\r\nto sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,\r\nriverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and\r\nactive riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces\r\nof history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the\r\nlife of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are\r\nsymbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
Which of the\r\nfollowing best summarizes the main idea of paragraph 3?
Arrowheads, which are ancient\r\nhunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both\r\nas artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States\r\ndate back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to\r\nwalk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring\r\nplanting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces\r\nof wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped\r\nweapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a\r\ntriangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the\r\ntip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and\r\nera of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of\r\nthe arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden\r\npiece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the\r\nshaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow\r\nat prey.
Indian arrowheads are important\r\nartifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)\r\nclues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,\r\nthey can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native\r\nAmerican groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,\r\nrock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the\r\nhunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out\r\nhunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found\r\nalong riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources\r\nto sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,\r\nriverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and\r\nactive riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces\r\nof history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the\r\nlife of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are\r\nsymbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
As used in paragraph 2, which is\r\nthe best definition for\r\nprojectile?
Arrowheads, which are ancient\r\nhunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both\r\nas artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States\r\ndate back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to\r\nwalk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring\r\nplanting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces\r\nof wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped\r\nweapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a\r\ntriangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the\r\ntip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and\r\nera of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of\r\nthe arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden\r\npiece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the\r\nshaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow\r\nat prey.
Indian arrowheads are important\r\nartifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)\r\nclues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,\r\nthey can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native\r\nAmerican groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,\r\nrock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the\r\nhunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out\r\nhunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found\r\nalong riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources\r\nto sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,\r\nriverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and\r\nactive riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces\r\nof history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the\r\nlife of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are\r\nsymbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
As it is used in paragraph 2,\r\nwhich is the best antonym for\r\nhoned
Arrowheads, which are ancient\r\nhunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both\r\nas artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States\r\ndate back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to\r\nwalk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring\r\nplanting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces\r\nof wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped\r\nweapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a\r\ntriangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the\r\ntip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and\r\nera of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of\r\nthe arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden\r\npiece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the\r\nshaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow\r\nat prey.
Indian arrowheads are important\r\nartifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)\r\nclues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,\r\nthey can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native\r\nAmerican groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,\r\nrock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the\r\nhunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out\r\nhunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found\r\nalong riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources\r\nto sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,\r\nriverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and\r\nactive riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces\r\nof history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the\r\nlife of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are\r\nsymbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
According to the passage which of\r\nthe following is not a material\r\nfrom which arrowheads were made?
","choices":[{"text":"Wood","value":"A"},{"text":"Glass","value":"B"},{"text":"Bone","value":"C"},{"text":"Stone","value":"D"},{"value":"E"}],"correctAnswer":2},{"id":120269,"question":"I am writing in response to response\r\nto the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this\r\nspring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would\r\nlike to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that\r\ncan benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,\r\nmore accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti\r\nusually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your\r\nauthor does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act\r\nof property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the\r\nimages themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the\r\nultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though\r\ngraffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or\r\ntravel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive\r\npayment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are\r\navailable, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider\r\nrandom words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is\r\njust vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is\r\nbreathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes\r\ngreat talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists\r\njust because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they\r\ncover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is\r\nvandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out\r\nof place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,\r\ngraffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and\r\nenjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,\r\nsuch as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the\r\npublic might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the\r\nvictims of a crime.
The writer concludes this passage\r\nby
I am writing in response to response\r\nto the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this\r\nspring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would\r\nlike to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that\r\ncan benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,\r\nmore accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti\r\nusually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your\r\nauthor does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act\r\nof property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the\r\nimages themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the\r\nultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though\r\ngraffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or\r\ntravel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive\r\npayment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are\r\navailable, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider\r\nrandom words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is\r\njust vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is\r\nbreathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes\r\ngreat talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists\r\njust because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they\r\ncover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is\r\nvandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out\r\nof place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,\r\ngraffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and\r\nenjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,\r\nsuch as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the\r\npublic might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the\r\nvictims of a crime.
In paragraph 4, the writer states,\r\n“Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple.” He most likely makes\r\nthis statement in order to
I am writing in response to response\r\nto the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this\r\nspring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would\r\nlike to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that\r\ncan benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,\r\nmore accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti\r\nusually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your\r\nauthor does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act\r\nof property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the\r\nimages themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the\r\nultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though\r\ngraffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or\r\ntravel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive\r\npayment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are\r\navailable, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider\r\nrandom words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is\r\njust vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is\r\nbreathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes\r\ngreat talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists\r\njust because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they\r\ncover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is\r\nvandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out\r\nof place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,\r\ngraffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and\r\nenjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,\r\nsuch as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the\r\npublic might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the\r\nvictims of a crime.
Which sentence from the passage\r\nbest illustrates the writer’s feeling about the graffiti art?
I am writing in response to response\r\nto the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this\r\nspring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would\r\nlike to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that\r\ncan benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,\r\nmore accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti\r\nusually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your\r\nauthor does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act\r\nof property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the\r\nimages themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the\r\nultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though\r\ngraffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or\r\ntravel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive\r\npayment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are\r\navailable, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider\r\nrandom words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is\r\njust vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is\r\nbreathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes\r\ngreat talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists\r\njust because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they\r\ncover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is\r\nvandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out\r\nof place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,\r\ngraffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and\r\nenjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,\r\nsuch as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the\r\npublic might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the\r\nvictims of a crime.
Based on its use in paragraph 4,\r\nwhich of the following accurately describes something that is intricate?
.I am writing in response to response\r\nto the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this\r\nspring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would\r\nlike to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that\r\ncan benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,\r\nmore accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti\r\nusually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your\r\nauthor does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act\r\nof property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the\r\nimages themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the\r\nultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though\r\ngraffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or\r\ntravel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive\r\npayment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are\r\navailable, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider\r\nrandom words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is\r\njust vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is\r\nbreathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes\r\ngreat talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists\r\njust because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they\r\ncover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is\r\nvandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out\r\nof place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,\r\ngraffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and\r\nenjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,\r\nsuch as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the\r\npublic might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the\r\nvictims of a crime.
According to the writer, random\r\nwords sprayed on stop sings are not