SAT Pastpaper with Solutions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) is a US government agency whose budget isfrequently (1) many times contested. Many people thinkof NASA’s programs as trivial. In truth, the agency has awidespread positive (2) effect on society by serving as acatalyst for innovation and scientific understanding,(3) to create jobs, and showing humanity its place withinthe universe.In 1958, the program’s first year, very few peoplebelieved that it was even possible for a manned spacecraftto leave the atmosphere and orbit Earth. But by initiatingand collaborating on projects such as the Apollo Moonmissions, the space shuttle program, the Hubble Space(4） Telescope, and unmanned planetary exploration,NASA has continually challenged its scientists andengineers to do things that were previously thoughtimpossible. All along, these NASA projects have（5） greatly increased international cooperation. A shortlist of inventions （6） elaborated by NASA includescommunications satellites, invisible braces, and cordlesstools. All these inventions （7） spawns new industries,and with those industries, jobs. NASA also sponsors theSmall Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer programs, which are specificallydesigned to support technological development in theprivate sector.[1] A report by the Space Foundation estimated thatNASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005.[2] More than 60 percent of the contribution （8） comingfrom commercial goods and services created bycompanies using space-related technology. [3] Thistranslates as excellent returns from an agency thatreceived approximately 17.7 billion in tax dollars in 2014.[4] This investment by taxpayers enhances not only thenational economy but also the United States’competitiveness in the international market.[5] Moreover, the benefits of NASA funding extendbeyond the purely economic, as astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson indicated in his testimony before the USSenate: “For...a penny on a dollar—we can transformthe country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary ofeconomic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed itstwentieth-century birthright to dream of tomorrow.” （9）Tyson’s expansive vision for the agency hints atanother mission of NASA’s, illuminated in thisobservation by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell: “Youdevelop an instant global consciousness, a peopleorientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of theworld, and a compulsion to do something about it.”（10） With world population topping seven billion,humanity is in need of some perspective. （11） Therefore,we should continue to support NASA not only forpractical reasons but also because it is a necessary vehiclefor increasing our awareness of how we can fulfill ourresponsibilities to the planet and each other.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

Professional Development: A Shared ResponsibilityNew theories, （12） new practices too, andtechnologies are transforming the twenty-first-centuryworkplace at lightning speed. To perform their jobssuccessfully in this dynamic environment, workers inmany （13） fields—from social services to manufacturing,must continually acquire relevant knowledge and updatekey skills. This practice of continued education, alsoknown as professional development, benefits not onlyemployees but also their employers. （14） Accordingly,meaningful professional development is a sharedresponsibility: it is the responsibility of employers toprovide useful programs, and it is also the responsibilityof employees to take advantage of the opportunitiesoffered to them.Critics of employer-provided professionaldevelopment argue that employees （15） might consider apopular career path. If employees find themselves fallingbehind in the workplace, these critics （16） contend. Thenit is the duty of those employees to identify, and even pay for, appropriate resources to （17） show them how andwhy they are falling behind and what they should doabout it. This argument ignores research pointing tohigh employee turnover and training of new staff assignificant costs plaguing employers in many fields.Forward-thinking employers recognize the importance ofinvesting in the employees they have rather than hiringnew staff when the skills of current workers （18） get oldand worn out. The most common forms of professionaldevelopment provided to employees （19） includescoaching, mentoring, technical assistance, andworkshops. Some employers utilize several approachessimultaneously, developing a framework that suits theparticular needs of their employees. （20） Around the sametime, the figure illustrates a simple yet comprehensiveprofessional-development model created for specialeducation personnel. As the figure suggests, （21） receivingcoaching and consultation is the overarching framework,while the opportunity to belong to professional networksand participate in activities such as foundation andskill-building workshops is relatively unimportant. A recent trend in professional development that hasprovided advantages to both employers and employees isonline instruction. From an employer perspective, thefirst and perhaps most obvious advantage is the lowercost of online professional development compared withthat of in-person workshops and training. Employers canalso （22） identify, which employees have successfullycompleted instructional modules and which need to beoffered additional training. For employees, onlineprofessional development provides the opportunity toreceive instruction at their own pace and interact withother professionals online. This exciting trend has thepotential to make the shared responsibility ofprofessional development less burdensome for bothemployers and employees.

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

The Evolution of Slow FoodIn 1986, McDonald’s caused a stir in Italy when itopened a restaurant next to Rome’s historic SpanishSteps. Young, on-the-go eaters were thrilled;（23） specifically, those who prized regional foods andItaly’s convivial culture built on cooking and long mealsfeared that the restaurant signaled the death of a way oflife. To counter the rise of fast food and fast （24） life, acohort of chefs, journalists, and sociologists spearheadeda Slow Food movement, declaring loyalty to unhurriedenjoyment. （25）From its beginning, the movement （26） had opposedthe standardization of taste that fast food chains promote.For example, a McDonald’s hamburger made in Bostontastes more or less the same as one made in Beijing. Thisconsistency is made possible by industrial massproduction. Slow Food supporters, by contrast, backmethods of growing and preparing food based onregional culinary traditions. When produced usingtraditional methods, goat cheese made in France tastesdifferent from goat cheese made in Vermont. A goat ingests the vegetation particular to the meadow in whichit grazes, which, along with other environmental（27） factors such as altitude and weather shapes thecheese’s taste and texture. If all foods were producedunder the industrial model, （28） we would have meals thatare not very flavorful.During （29） their early years, the movement alsofocused on the value of （30） spending lots of time withfriends and family during long meals. It emphasizedthe importance of preserving these “easygoing, slow pleasures.” As the movement grew beyond Italy’sborders—today Slow Food International boasts morethan 100,000 members in 150 countries—this emphasison pleasure （31） pictured criticism for being elitist. Criticshave also asked if growing food using traditionalmethods, as opposed to mass production, （32） canadequately and affordably feed the world? Given thehectic pace of modern life, who among us has the timeand resources for elaborate meals? Such questions, inaddition to environmental concerns, are at the heart ofperennial debates about food production.Over time, Slow Food has broadened its mission tofocus on food that is good, clean, and fair for all.Members assert that food should be flavorful, carryingthe properties of a particular region; it should be raisedusing environmentally sustainable practices that preservebiodiversity; and it should be accessible to all withoutexploiting the labors of those who produced it. （33） Inshort, Slow Food runs programs that support small-scaleproducers in marketing regional foods in a world wherefood corporations threaten to drive them out of themarketplace and homogenize food choices

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.

Was the Hoax a Hoax?For an hour on the evening of October 30, 1938,Orson Welles and other performers from the MercuryTheatre flooded the airwaves with alarming “newsbulletins” about a Martian invasion supposedly occurringin Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. They were performing aradio play adapted from The War of the Worlds,a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. The next day, afront-page （34） headline in the New York Times declared,“Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”（35） The Times article claimed that people had fled theirhomes and that police stations had been swamped withcalls. This version of events persisted, and the legendbecame that Welles’s broadcast had as many as twelvemillion people （36） who feared that Martians had invadedEarth.Recently, however, scholars have questioned theaccuracy of this legend, suggesting the degree of publichysteria has been grossly exaggerated. The authors of anarticle published in October 2013 go （37） so far to assignblame for the distortion to the newspaper industry （38） At this time, Jefferson Pooley and Michael Socolow,both professors of communication studies, argue that thenewspaper industry sought to discredit the newlyemerging technology of radio, which was cutting intonewspapers’ （39） profits. The newspaper industry tried todo this by portraying the new medium as irresponsible.[1] Proof of ulterior motives is scarce,（40） consequently weakening Pooley and Socolow’sargument. [2] For instance, the C. E. Hooper ratingsindicate that a mere 2 percent of households had tuned into the broadcast. [3] Pooley and Socolow also call intoquestion the validity of an oft-cited report that was basedon a survey conducted six weeks after the broadcast.[4] Just because some people found the broadcastunsettling, the authors contend, doesn’t mean theybelieved it and reacted with real terror. [5] According tothis report, one million people indicated that they hadbeen “frightened” by the broadcast. [6] Ratings, however,reveal that （41） far fewer than a million people had been listening to the broadcast. [7] Furthermore, Pooley andSocolow note that this survey “conflated being‘frightened,’ ‘disturbed,’ or ‘excited’ by the program withbeing ‘panicked.’” （42） Pooley and Socolow describe a more likely scenario:most people who heard the broadcast understood theywere listening to a piece of fiction, but （43） some beinginfluenced by the sensationalized news coverageafterward, later “remembered” being more afraid thanthey had been. The researchers also suggest that,（44） not unlike people who got caught up in theexcitement of the story when reading about it in thenewspaper, the American public may have been willing toembrace the legend because of its appeal to theimagination.