(1) Gale Sayers was an amazing football player. He was small and astonishingly fast. His nickname was the Kansas Comet because he attended college at the University of Kansas, where he was an All-American running back. In a game in his junior year, he set an NCAA record with a 99-yard run against Nebraska. The next year, he scored the winning touchdown against Oklahoma when he ran a kickoff back 96 yards. Many think he was the best open-field runner who ever played the game. He was like a ballerina among sumo wrestlers. (2) As a professional player with the Chicago Bears starting in 1965, he led the league in rushing his first season. In his rookie season, he scored an NFL record 22 touchdowns (14 rushing, 6 receiving, and 1 each on punt and kickoff returns). He gained 1,374 yards from scrimmage and had 2,272 all-purpose yards (also a record). He thrilled the crowd in December when he scored six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers, tying the record for most touchdowns in a single game. He won every post-season honor that year. The Bears finished a disappointing third in their conference. (3) In his second season, despite being the focus of opposing defenses, Sayers led the league in rushing with 1,231 yards, averaging 5.4 yards per carry with eight touchdowns. He set another NFL record with 2,440 all-purpose yards despite the fact the Bears struggled, finishing in fifth place with a 5-7-2 record. Sayers also won the Pro Bowl Most Valuable Player award, the first of three. (4) In his third season, Sayers again starred on a mediocre Bears squad. Sharing more of the rushing duties with another running back, Sayers gained only 880 yards with a 4.7 average per carry. He was still the league’s best and most exciting kickoff returner. He was always a danger to go all the way, and in fact returned three kickoffs for touchdowns on only 16 returns in 1967. Chicago finished in second place with a 7-6-1 record. (5) After the first nine games of his fourth season (1968), Sayers was again leading the

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."