THE VOYAGES OF DOCTOR DOLITTLE
By Hugh Lofting

Chapter 1: The Cobbler's Son
My name was Tommy Stubbins, son of Jacob Stubbins, the cobbler of Puddleby-on-the-Marsh; and I was nine and a half years old. At that time Puddleby was only quite a small town. A river ran through the middle of it; and over this river there was a very old stone bridge, called Kingsbridge, which led you from the market-place on one side to the churchyard on the other.
Sailing-ships came up this river from the sea and anchored near the bridge. I used to go down and watch the sailors unloading the ships upon the river-wall. The sailors sang strange songs as they pulled upon the ropes; and I learned these songs by heart. And I would sit on the river-wall with my feet dangling over the water and sing with the men, pretending to myself that I too was a sailor.

For I longed always to sail away with those brave ships when they turned their backs on Puddleby Church and went creeping down the river again, across the wide lonely marshes to the sea. I longed to go with them out into the world to seek my fortune in foreign lands—Africa, India, China and Peru! When they got round the bend in the river and the water was hidden from view, you could still see their huge brown sails towering over the roofs of the town, moving onward slowly—like some gentle giants that walked among the houses without noise. What strange things would they have seen, I wondered, when next they came back to anchor at Kingsbridge! And, dreaming of the lands I had never seen, I'd sit on there, watching till they were out of sight.

Which element of the description of Puddleby is most significant to the plot of the story so far? (5 points)

That it had a marketplace and a cemetery
That it had an old stone bridge named for a king
That a river ran through the middle of it
That it was quite small in size

Read the passage. excerpt from "why equal pay is worth fighting for" by senator elizabeth warren, april 17, 2014 i honestly can't believe that we're still arguing over equal pay in 2014. when i started teaching elementary school after college, the public school district didn't hide the fact that it had two pay scales: one for men and one for women. women have made incredible strides since then. but 40 years later, we're still debating equal pay for equal work. women today still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and they're taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6 percent of occupations, men get paid more than women. that's not an accident; that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real, and they are long lasting. today, more young women go to college than men, but unequal pay makes it harder for them to pay back student loans. pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women. . for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by, and many families depend as much on mom's salary as they do on dad's, if not more. women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country, and pay discrimination makes it that much harder for these families to stay afloat. women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination, but it's not easy. today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. here in the senate, sen. barbara mikulski (d-md.) introduced the paycheck fairness act to give women the tools to combat wage discrimination. it would ensure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing, and not just because they are women. senator warren states that the effects of pay discrimination are long-lasting. is this a valid argument supported by accurate evidence? no; warren weakens her point by claiming that the paycheck fairness act would "give women the tools to combat wage discrimination." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women." no; warren weakens her point by noting, "today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes."