1. how to does diagram used "dig this technology" support the author's point of view?
a. the diagram shows how the ground penetrating radar works without having to dig things up.
b. the diagram shows how many terraces machu picchu has.
c. the diagram shows where machu picchu is located.
d. the diagram shows what types of objects might be buried at machu picchu.

2. what is a prompt asking you to do if you are to compare information in two texts about the methods used to study machu picchu?

a. describe the ways machu picchu looks now and how it used to look.
b. tell how the methods described in the two texts are different.
c. explain why machu picchu was built, according to scientists and historians.
d. tell the ways machu picchu compares to different cities built during the same era.
d.

Potentially, a large spill can be: a) an environmental threat, if it gets into drains b) a dangerous fire hazard c) harmful to individuals d) all of the above

"there will be differences in degree of mood elevation seen in depressed clients after receiving either cognitive-behavioral or psychoanalytic therapy."; in this hypothesis, mood elevation is the:

Ahusband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother's house. they planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. after the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. when the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. the husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. at the arsonist's trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred. at common law, how should a jury find the arsonist? a not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act. b not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act. c guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan. d guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother's house on fire.