2. II. Answer the following with reference to the story.
1. "I wouldn't throw it away."
(i) Who says these words?
(ii) What does it refer to?
(iii) What is it being compared with by the speaker?
2. "Sure they had a teacher, but it wasn't a regular teacher. It was a man."
(i) Who does 'they' refer to?
(ii) What does regular' mean here?
(iii) What is it contrasted with?
III. Answer each of these questions in a short paragraph (about 30 words).
What kind of teachers did Margie and Tommy have?
Why did Margie's mother send for the County Inspector?
3. What did he do?
4. Why was Margie doing badly in geography? What did the County Inspect
do to help her?
-5. What had once happened to Tommy's teacher?
6. Did Margie have regular days and hours for school? If so, why?
7. How does Tommy describe the old kind of school?
8. How does he describe the old kind of teachers?
IV. Answer each of these questions in two or three paragraphs (100-150 words),
1. What are the main features of the mechanical teachers and the schoolroom
that Margie and Tommy have in the story?
2. Why did Margie hate school? Why did she think the old kind of school mus
have been fun?​

dfdfd

explanation:

- "the answers are a and b.  

when cullen speaks of planting while others reap, and standing "abject and mute," he is speaking about the racial injustices present in american society. as these injustices have changed over time, the american identity  has also shifted. those changes are, in turn, reflected in american literature."

an interrogative sentence is a type of sentence that asks a question, as opposed to sentences that make a statement, deliver a command, or express an exclamation. interrogative sentences are typically marked by inversion of the subject and predicate; that is, the first verb in a verb phrase appears before the hope i

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this