Answer:
D. “But the relationship between the choice of a specific institution and a major and a lucrative and fulfilling first job and career is complicated. It has lots of moving parts.” (Paragraph 23)
Explanation:
Part A question is: Which statement best expresses the central idea of the text?
A. Having a college degree isn't valuable right now, as there are few jobs that actually require people to have a degree.
B. It's difficult to measure the long-term financial payoffs that certain majors will yield, which is why it's best to choose majors based on your interests and strengths.
C. Students should focus on occupation-specific majors, as they're more likely to be placed into jobs immediately after graduating.
D. While liberal art degrees don't prepare students for a specific job, they give widely applicable skills that all employers value.
The correct option is B, and we can see that option D in part B best supports the answer because it talks about institutions, which is where people study to major in a specific area regarding interests and strengths. Also, it mentions that the relationship between the choice of an institution, a major, a lucrative and fulfilling first job, and a career has lots of moving parts. In these moving parts, there are different variables. They modify how well a certain degree will pay off and the many facts that influence the choice of a career.
Answer:
The word "envy" came from the Latin word "invidere". Here "In" means "contrary", and "videre" means "to look". .
Envy is a feeling we will have towards someone when we wish that we had his qualities, luck, or possessions.
For example, old men envy younger men; those who have spent much envy those who have spent little on the same thing; and men who have not got a thing, or not got it yet, envy those who have got it quickly.
Ambitious men are more envious than those who are not. If a person is ambitious to make a fortune, he will be envious on this particular point. Hence he will envy those who became rich quickly. Similarly, small-minded men are envious, for everything seems great to them-fame, wisdom, gift, or love. They envy it not because of their demands for it, but because the other people have it.
And it is also clear what kind of people we envy. Most of the time, we feel envious towards our equals or competitors. In another word, we envy those who are near us in time, place, age, or reputation. We do not compete with men who lived a hundred centuries ago, or those not yet born, or the dead, or those whom we consider to be far below us or far above us. But we do compete with our rivals in sport or in love, and generally with those who are after the same things. And it is therefore these people we envy more than others.
Sometimes we will confuse envy with jealousy, yet these two terms are quite different from each other.
Jealousy is a feeling one feels when one hates the lucky person who has received something that should have been given to oneself. He is not satisfied with the fact that others have got what he ought to have, or have got what he did have once. It is often used to describe a love relationship. A wife may become jealous when she sees that her husband shows admiration for another beautiful woman. She feels justified in doing this because she considers it her only right to have her husband's love.
Explanation:
<span>As the fiscal year comes to a close, it’s well worth our time to take a close look at the way local
governments are budgeting tax dollars. With high unemployment rates and rising rents and
food costs across the nation, every one of those dollars matters immensely—and none of them
should be wasted on funding for public art. I’ll be the first to admit that, even during difficult economic times, </span>
<span>people need the arts to offer commentary, philosophy, and amusement. I am, in fact, a great supporter of the arts, and I regularly donate to arts organizations. The arts need money; they just don’t need government
money.
Cutting government funding for public art frees up tax dollars for indispensable government
necessities that protect the safety and well-being of citizens, such as road building and
maintenance, healthcare, housing, and education. Directing would-be arts funding into other
programs is not only beneficial for those areas in need of more crucial government support; it is
also good for artists and the art itself.
Art is, by its very nature, expressive and controversial. The best art represents an individual
point of view that is critical, imaginative, and eye-opening. This kind of ingenuity requires
freedom and independence on the part of the artist. When the government provides funding
for public art projects, the artist loses freedom. When using public funds, the artist is
constrained by the need to represent the point of view of the government and to gratify the
general public. There are countless stories of public art pieces being altered, censored, or even
destroyed when the public exerted its authority over the work. Naturally, this situation results
in a loss of personal freedom for the artist and an abundance of mediocre public artwork.
The financial solution to producing high-quality, provocative art is private funding. If we allow
the market to drive the production of art, artists and art-lovers will have a greater influence on
the art being created and shown to the public. Already, private funding accounts for most art
being created in America. In 2008, a record-breaking 858 million public dollars was spent on the
arts by local governments in the United States. This sum pales in comparison to the 12.79
billion private dollars donated to the arts in the same year. And the high number of private
dollars donated to artists is of course supplemented by the money that collectors spend on
buying art in auction houses and galleries. Statistics show us that art can and does flourish
without public funding. In fact, for centuries great masterpieces have been created without
government money. Masters such as Shakespeare and Leonardo da Vinci had private funders,
and their masterpieces continue to influence generations around the world.
In light of this evidence, I offer a strong suggestion for the coming fiscal year: Let’s stop the
move towards government-funded public art projects and encourage private donors to invest in
the creation of high-quality, uncensored art. We don’t need public art pieces that incite
controversy, upset some of the taxpayers who helped pay for them, and give the government
the power of censorship. We need public funding to provide the necessities of health, safety, and education to our nation’s citizens. We also need a thriving private art market that allows
artists financial independence and freedom of expression.</span>
Answer:
dude where is the question. just a passage??
I think the correct answer would be b
