The answer is D because that’s the only one that’s not right
Rosalind was the second of five children. She was born on July 25, 1920 in London. The Franklin's were an upper-class family who lived a life of luxury. Rosalind never even had to go to school - she would have been provided for from her family's wealth. As a child, she never felt like she was understood. She hated pretend games and did not play with dolls. Rosalind had to find the facts behind everything before she became a believer.
Rosalind attended St. Paul's Girls' School in London. Here she had excellent training in science classes. It was here that she decided her career path. She applied to Cambridge University and passed the entrance exams. However, she almost didn't make it. Rosalind's father did not think that women should attend university and refused to pay for her education. Luckily, Rosalind's mother and an aunt became irate and said they would pay. Of course, Rosalind's father recanted in the effort not to be embarrassed by women paying for the education.
The experience at Cambridge was not the best for Rosalind. There was a stuffy atmosphere for the women studying there. She vowed never to become like the women faculty members there. She graduated in 1941 with a degree in Chemistry (World Book, 2001). She then took a job with Nobel chemist, Ronald Norrish. From here she took a job with the British Coal Utilization Research As...
... middle of paper ...
...tealing Rosalind's data, but this is close to recognition as she ever comes
It seems that the BJP government’s decision to illegalise the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets has its roots in a PIL that quotes the five-yearly Gadhimai festival in Nepal, where thousands of buffaloes are taken from India to be sacrificed to ‘appease’ Gadhimai, the goddess of power.
The contradictions that emerge from cattle – here encompassing all bovines – slaughter rules in Nepal perplex many: despite being predominantly Hindu, animal sacrifice continues to be practised. Cow slaughter is explicitly prohibited even in Nepal’s new constitution since it is the national animal, yet the ritual sacrifice of buffaloes and the consumption of their meat is not frowned upon. There is also, in marked contrast to the Indian government’s blanket approach to cattle terminology, a lucid distinction between cows (both the male and female) and other ‘cattle’ species (such as buffaloes and yaks).
The emergence of this contradictory, often paradoxical, approach to cattle slaughter in Nepal is the result of a careful balancing act by the rulers of modern Nepal. The Shah dynasty and the Rana prime ministers often found themselves at a crossroads to explicitly define the rules of cattle slaughter. As rulers of a perceived ‘asal Hindu-sthan’, their dharma bound them to protect the cow – the House of Gorkha borrows its name from the Sanskrit ‘gou-raksha’ – but as they expanded into an empire, their stringent Brahminic rules came into conflict with des-dharma, or existing local customs, where cattle-killing was a norm. What followed was an intentionally ambiguous approach to cattle slaughter, an exercise in social realpolitik.
C hold back
Hold back from asking other students....
