It is easy to make delicious-looking hamburger at home. But would this
hamburger still look delicious after it sat on your kitchen table under very
bright lights for six or seven hours? if someone took a picture or made a video
of this hamburger after the seventh hour, would anyone want to eat it? More
importantly, do you think you could get millions of people to pay money for
this hamburger? These are the questions that fast food companies worry about
when they produce commercials or print ads for their products. Video and photo
shoots often last many hours. The lights that the photographers use can be
extremely hot. These conditions can cause the food to look quite unappealing to
potential consumers. Because of this, the menu items that you see in fast food
commercials are probably not actually edible.Let's use the hamburger as an
example. The first step towards building the commercial hamburger is the bun.
The food stylist--a person employed by the company to make sure the products
look perfect--sorts through hundreds of buns until he or she finds one with no
wrinkles. Next, the stylist carefully rearranges the sesame seeds on the bun
using glue and tweezers for maximum visual appeal. The bun is then sprayed with
a waterproofing solution so that it will no get soggy from contact with other
ingredients, the lights, or the humidity in the room.Next, the food stylist
shapes a meat patty into a perfect circle. Only the outside of the meat gets
cooked-the inside is left raw so that the meat remains moist. The food stylist
then paints the outside of the meat patty with a mixture of oil, molasses, and
brown food coloring. Grill marks are either painted on or seared into the meat
using hot metal skewers.Finally, the food stylist searches through dozens of
tomatoes and heads of lettuce to find the best-looking produce.One leaf of the
crispest lettuce and one center slice of the reddest tomato are selected and
then sprayed with glycerin to keep them looking fresh. So the next time you see
a delectable hamburger in a fast food commercial, remember: you are actually
looking at glue, paint, raw meat , and glycerin. Are you still hungry?
Question:
Something is edible of it
Right now, I am looking at a shelf
full or relics, a collection of has-beens, old-timers, antiques, fossils. Right
now I am lolling at a shelf full of books. Yes that’s right. If you have some
spare cash (the doing rate is about $89) and are looking to enhance your reading
experience, then I highly suggest you consider purchasing an e-reader.
E-readers are replacing the books of old, and I welcome them with open arms (as
you should).
If you haven’t heard of an e-reader
and don’t know what it is, then please permit the following explanation. An
e-reader is a device that allows you to read e-books. An e-book is a
book-length publication in digital form, consisting of text, images, or both,
and produced on, published through, and readable on computers or other
electronic devices. Sometimes the equivalent of a conventional printed book,
e-books can also be born digital. The Oxford Dictionary or English defines the
e-book as “an electronic version of a printed book, “but e-book can and do
exist without any printed equivalent.
So now you know what an e-reader is.
But you still may be wondering why they put printed books to shame. E-readers
are superior to printed books because they save space, are environmentally friendly,
and provide helpful reading tips and tools that printed books do not.
E-readers are superior to printed
books because they save space. The average e-reader can store thousands of
digital book, providing a veritable library at your fingertips. What is more,
being the size and weight of a thin hardback, the e-reader itself is relatively
petite. It is easy to hold and can fit in a pocketbook or briefcase easily. This
makes handling ponderous behemoths such as War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and
Les Miserables a breeze. Perhaps the only drawback to the space-saving aspect
of an e-reader is that it requires you to find new things to put on your
shelves.
In addition, e-readers are superior
to books because they are environmentally friendly. The average novel is about
300 pages long. So, if a novel is printed 1000 times, it will use 300,000
pieces of paper. That’s a lot of paper! If there are about 80,000 pieces of
paper in a tree, this means it takes almost 4 trees to make these 1000 books.
Now, we know that the average bestseller sells about 20,000 copies per week.
That means that it takes over 300 trees each month to sustain this rate. And
for the super bestsellers, these figures increase dramatically. For example,
the Harry Potter book series has sold over 450 million copies. That’s about 2
million trees! Upon viewing these figures, it is not hard to grasp the severe
impact of printed books on the environment. Since e-reader use no trees, they
represent a significant amount of preservation in terms of the environment and
its resources.
Finally, e-reader are superior to
books because they provide helpful reading tips and tolls that printed books do
not. The typical e-reader allows its user to customize letter size, font, and
line spacing. It also allows highlighting and electronic bookmarking.
Furthermore, it grants users the ability to get an overview of a book and then
jump to a specific electronic bookmarking. Furthermore, it grants users the
ability to get an overview of a book and then jump to a specific location based
on that overview. While these are all nice features, perhaps the most helpful
of all is the ability to get dictionary definitions at the touch of a finger.
On even the most basic e-reader, users can conjure instant definitions without
having to hunt through a physical dictionary.
It can be seen that e-readers are
superior to printed books. They save space, are environmentally friendly, and
provide helpful reading tips and tools that printed books do not. So what good
are printed books? Well, they certainly make nice decorations.
Based on information in the passage,
it can be inferred that War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and Les Miserables are
all
Arrowheads, which are ancient
hunting tools, are often themselves ‘hunted’ for their interesting value both
as artifacts and as art. Some of the oldest arrowheads in the United States
date back 12,000 years. They are not very difficult to find. You need only to
walk with downcast eyes in a field that has been recently tilled for the spring
planting season, and you might find one.
Arrowheads are tiny stones or pieces
of wood, bone, or metal which have been sharpened in order to create a tipped
weapon used in hunting. The material is honed to an edge, usually in a
triangular fashion, and is brought to a deadly tip. On the edge opposite the
tip is a flared tail. Though designs vary depending on the region, purpose, and
era of the arrowhead’s origin, the tails serve the same purpose. The tail of
the arrowhead is meant to be strapped onto a shaft, which is a straight wooden
piece such as a spear or an arrow. When combined, the arrowhead point and the
shaft become a lethal projectile weapon to be thrown by arm or shot with a bow
at prey.
Indian arrowheads are important
artifacts that give archeologists (scientists who study past human societies)
clues about the lives of Native Americans. By analyzing an arrowhead’s shape,
they can determine the advancement of tool technologies among certain Native
American groups. By determining the origin of the arrowhead material (bone,
rock, wood, or metal), they can trace the patterns of travel and trade of the
hunters. By examine the location of the arrowheads, archeologists can map out
hunting grounds and other social patterns.
Arrowheads are commonly found
along riverbanks or near creek beds because animals drawn to natural water sources
to sustain life were regularly found drinking along the banks. For this reason,
riverbeds were a prime hunting ground for the Native Americans. Now, dry and
active riverbeds are prime hunting grounds for arrowhead collectors.
Indian arrowheads are tiny pieces
of history that fit in the palm of your hand. They are diary entries in the
life of a hunter. They are museum pieces that hide in the dirt. They are
symbolic of the eternal struggle between life and death.
In the final
paragraph, the author writes, “They are museum pieces symbolic of the eternal
struggle between life and death.” Which of the following is the best way to
combine these two sentences, while keeping their original meaning?
