Which two details refine the author's claim that the materials used for the design of shoes has evolved over time? excerpt from “Shoes: Feet First!” from A History of Travel in 50 Vehicles by Paula Grey & Phillip Hoose Despite the relatively recent age of the early shoes found to date, scientists believe that humans were wearing shoes as much as 40,000 years ago. Shoes made of reeds, papyrus, or even leather decompose easily, leaving few or no traces. But people who don’t wear shoes have wider feet and bigger gaps between their big toe and the other four. In studying bones of the smaller toes of fossilized skeletons, scientists observed that the thickness of these bones decreased somewhere between 40,000 and 26,000 years ago. They believe the change was the result of wearing shoes. The materials used to make shoes varied with the climate and region. Ancient Egyptians made sandals from papyrus and palm leaves. The Masai of Africa used rawhide; the people of India used wood; and the Chinese and Japanese used rice straw. South Americans wove sandals from the leaves the sisal plant, and the Anasazi people of Mexico and Arizona used the yucca plant. The Dutch developed wooden clogs. People living in arctic climates created snowshoes —a hardwood frame with rawhide lacings—which distribute a person’s weight over a larger area so that the foot doesn’t sink into the snow. Today, shoe manufacturers use rubber, plastic, cloth, and other materials in addition to leather. Most soles are made from synthetic materials such as ethylene, vinyl, acetate, rubber, and polyurethane, which provide better traction, durability, and water resistance than leather soles. Special shoes are available for running, bowling, and other sports. And shoes are often considered an important fashion accessory.

Read this excerpt from leo tolstoy's the death of ivan ilyich her attitude towards him and his diseases is still the same just as the doctor had adopted a certain relation to his patient which he could not abandon, so had she formed one towards him—that he was not doing something he ought to do and was himself to blame, and that she reproached him lovingly for this--and she could not now change that attitude. "you see he doesn't listen to me and doesn't take his medicine at the proper time. and above all he lies in a position that is no doubt bad for him.- with his legs up" she described how he made gerasim hold his legs up the doctor smiled with a contemptuous affability that said"what's to be done? these sick people do have foolish fancles of that kind, but we must forgive them they all rose, said good-night and went away when they had gone it seemed to ivan ilyich that he felt better, the falsity had gone with them. but the pain remained--that same pain and that same fear that made everything monotonously alike, nothing harder and nothing easier. everything was worse again minute followed minute and hour followed hour everything remained the same and there was no cessation. and the inevitable end of it all became more and more terrible based on the excerpt, how is praskovya fedorovna a character foil to ivan ilyich? a. she is kind and takes care of ivan, which is why he feels guilty about how he treated her for most of their married life • b. she is vindictive toward ivan while pretending to be worried about him, thus reminding him of how his family has never forgiven him she plays the part of the worried wife without any real feeling, symbolizing the false propriety ivan upheld but now hates c. d. she is young, healthy, and beautiful-everything ivan can never be again and wishes he could return to

Read the following lines from wordsworth's poem and answer the question. for oft, when on my couch i lie in vacant or in pensive mood, they flash upon that inward eye which is the best paraphrase of these lines? despite being able to plant my own daffodils, i prefer remembering the ones by the bay. if i feel very sad, i look inside myself for courage to face the day with my eyes open. oftentimes, i become so tired and overwhelmed that i lay down and think of daffodils. when i am feeling empty or concerned, the sight of the daffodils comes to my mind.

Read this paragraph from chapter 5 of the prince. there are, for example, the spartans and the romans. the spartans held athens and thebes, establishing there an oligarchy: nevertheless they lost them. the romans, in order to hold capua, carthage, and numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. they wished to hold greece as the spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. so to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. and he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. and whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the florentines. what idea is stressed in the passage? the desire for liberty the establishment of an oligarchy the dismantling of an acquired state the tendency toward rebellion