Many people are worried about what television has done to the generation of African children who have grown up watching it. According to Kwafo (2017), studies tend to show that TV stifles creative imagination. Similarly, Marco (2019) adds that television has taken away the child's ability to form mental pictures in his or her mind, resulting in chi1dren who cannot understand a simple story without visual illustrations. Secondly, Mba (2019) argues that too much television too early tends to cause children to withdraw from real-life experiences. The result of this as pointed out by Nimo (2018), is that they grow up to be passive spectators who can only respond to action, but not initiate it. The third area for concern is the serious frequent complaint made by elementary school teachers that children exhibit a low tolerance for the frustrations of learning. This is because they have been conditioned to see all problems resolved in 30 or 60 minutes on TV, they are quickly discouraged by any activity that promises less than instant gratification. Finally, perhaps, the most serious result is the impact of television violence on children, who have come to regard it as an everyday thing. Not only does this increase their tolerance of violent behaviour in others, but the Women and Juvenile Unit (WAJU) now concedes that under certain conditions, some children will imitate anti-social acts that they witness on television.
1. Summarize in not more than 15 words the 4 negative impact on children.
2. In less than 5 words, summarize the concern of WAJU on the intolerant nature of children.
3. What is the impact of television on children as they become inexperience in life? Write your answer in
4. Paraphrase Marco’s view on the negative impact of television on children
5. Paraphrase the frequent complaint of elementary school teachers about the impact of television

Which statement describes how connotationis used in this passage

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

How is the consumption of food used as a symbol in the play? what does food stand for in the play? how does oscar wilde use symbolismin his social commentary? use examples from the play to support your answer.