DOCUMENT RESUME SE 045 878 Shapiro, Michael A.
DOCUMENT RESUMEED 259 907AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTESE 045 878Shapiro, Michael A.Analogies, Visualization and Mental Processing ofScience Stories.Mey 8537p.; Paper presented to the Information SystemsDivision of the International CommunicationAssociation (Honolu]5u, HI-, May, 1985).PUB TYPESpeeches/Conference Papers (150) -- ReportsResearch /Technical (143)EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSMF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.Chemistry; *Cognitive Processes; *CognitiveStructures; Higher Education; Physics; *ReactionTime; *Science Education; *Visualization*Analogies; Science Education ReF archIDENTIFIERSABSTRACTThe effect of a relevant analogy and of subjectvisualization on the amount of cognitive capacity needed to processunfamiliar information about science was investigated. The dependentmeasure was reaction time on a secondary task while listening to sixtape recorded passages about chemistry and physics in a 2 x 2 x 6mixed design. The analogy treatment group required'less cognitivecapacity and the visualization treatment group required morecognitive capacity to process the-materials. The analogy resultssupport the theory that analogies make mental processing moreefficient by modifying 'existing cognitive structures prior toprocessing the new information. The visualization results support atheory that visualizers devote more attention to the material beingprocessed. A general similarity effect of organizing devices issuggested. ******************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original ******************************
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI'Thisdocument has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationtaBEST COPY AVAILABLECDoriginating it.Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official NIEpoWonwpokyCht.C1C 1LidANALOGIES, VISUALIZATION AND MENTAL PROCESSING OF SCIENCE STORIESPaper presented to the Information Systems Division of theInternational Communication Association. May, 1985. Honolulu,Hawaii.tiMichael A. ShapiroSchool of Journalism.and Mass CommunicationUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison5022 Vilas Hall821 University Ave.Madison, WI. 53706(608) 263-174000"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYtiichael A. Shapiro1-01.1()TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (MC)The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable help ofByron Reeves, Esther Thorson and Joan Schleuder.2
Analogies, VisualizationAbstractThe effect cf a relevant analogy and of subjectvisualization on the amount of cognitive capacity needed toprocess unfamiliar information about science was investigated.The dependent measure was reaction time on a secondary task whilelistening to six tarrecorded passages about Chemistry andPhysics in a 2 x 2.x 6-mixed design.The analogy treatment grouprequired less cognitive capacity and the visualization treatmel/group required more cognitive capacity to process the materials.The analogy results support the theory that analogies make mentalprocessing more efficient by modifying existing cognitivestructures prior to processing the new information.Thevisualization results support a theory that visualizers devotemore attention to the material being processed.A generalsimilarity effect of organing devices is suggested.
Analogies, Visualization2Science journalists are often advised that analogies can beused to help readers understand unfamiliar material (FunkhouserMaccoby, 1971, 1973).Scientists themselves make extensive useof analogies both in explaining science and in the discovery1process of science itself (Dreistadt, 1968; Koestler, 1964;Kaufman, 1980); so, it seems natural that persons learning aboutscience would also find analogies helpful.Three suggestions have been made about the influence ofanalogies on mental processing. One view is that analogies helpstructure existing memory, preparing it for new information(Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Gentner, 1983).In this case ananalogy comparing electricity in wires to water in a pipe helpsmemory make more efficient connections betw3en new informationand already existing information structures. Such a "structuring"view predicts that the increased efficiency of well-preparedcognitive structures would reduce demand on cognitive capacity.Another possibility is that analogies make new informationmore concrete and easier to imagine %Davidson, 1976).Thus thewater in a pipe analogy might help wodessing of newly learnedelectrical principles by making them more imaginable and vivid.Since it requires.an additional concur ;ent mental process toimagine the material, "concretization" would predict thatprocessing new material under the influence of a relevant analogywould make greater demands on cognitive capacity than if no suchanalogy was cognitively available.
Analogies, Visualization3Related is the possibility that analogies. may interact withmental visualization processes (Simons, 1982),.Activevisualizers of the material being processed may 'make differentuse of an available analogy than persoils not visualizing.Avisualization hypothesis predicts an interaction effect in whichthe effect of analogy is different at. different levels ofvisualization.Thus, if the availability of an analogy influences mentalprocessing, the three mechaniSms of that influence suggestedabove make different predictions about the resulting demands oncognitive capacity.Current research has not directly comparedRather one model of analogyany of these proposed mechanisms.action, usually a concretization or structuring model, has beenassumed, and researchers have focused almost exclusively on theconditions under which analogies improve recall.However,it is worthwhile to review this literature for hints about thepossible cognitive effects of analogy.After reviewing analogy studies in the communicationliterature, Grunig (1979) found that such stylistic elements areless important than content in journalistic attempts to teachthe public about science.Simons (1982) cites tenclassroom-learning related studies that found significantlygreater recall with analogies than without.But several otherstudies focusing on educational applications of analogies foundmixed if any effect of analogies on recall (Bell & Gagne, 1979;Smith, 1980; Curtis & Reigeluth, 1983).5
Analogies, Visualization4In some cases analogies seem to help high ability or highintelligence subjects more than low ability subjects, but inother studies that relationship has been reversed.Sternberg(1977) found high ability students benefited most from having anHowever, Bellanalogy available when learning complex material.and Gagne (1979) found that recall for subjects with lowquantitative scores on the SAT were better in the analogycondition while subjects with high SAT quantitative scores didbetter in the no-analogy conditions.Subjects who scored low ona measure of the development of logical thinking benefited morefrom analogies than did those who scored higher (Gabel &Sherwood, 1980).Bartholomew (1973) found that includinganalogies in articles about physics caused physics students tostop and think and to report more understanding.But theanalogies did not have the same effect on journalism students,who presumably need more help in understanding science.Clear evidence that subjects likely to have more developedcognitive structures are helped more by analogies than subjectswithout such structures would tend to support a theory thatanalogies help to prepare already existing cognitive structures.A clear no-difference result between the two groups would tend tosupport a "concretization" theory, since that approach is lessdependcnt on already existing cognitive structures.Neitherpattern can clearly be distinguished here.The case for an interaction between mental visualization andanalogies is largely anecdotal and suggestive.6Analogies
Analogies, Visualizationreported by scientists are frequently visual--Kekule's visualimage of fiery snakes forming a ring inspired. his insight intothe structure of Benzene.Einstein visualized himself as apassenger riding on a ray of light holding a mirror in front ofhim (Kcestler, 1964).In fact, Einstein specifically wrote toone researcher that it was visual and muscular images, not words,that informed his thought (Hadumard,.1945).Some studies support these anecdotes.When measuringlong-term retention bf science information, Simons (1982) foundan interaction between his analogy-no-analogy treatment and avisualizer-verbalizer dimension.Verbalizers in the no-analogygroup were able to remember more than the verbalizers in theanalogy group, but visualizers in the analogy group performed thebest.KAafman (1980) concluded that analogy production ismediated through visual imagery after almost all of his subjectsreported visualizing while trying to find pictorial analogies forthe solution to a problem.And, supplementing verbal descriptionwith animated graphic analogies was shown to help learning ofconcepts in Chemistry more than verbal description alone (Rigney& Lutz, 1976).If a mental interaction between visualization and analogyexists, differences in scientists and non-scientists' ability tovisualize the material they are trying to encode might explainsome o[ the apparently contradictory results concerningintelligence and science ability.Ability to transform analogies
Analogies, Vist."on6into visual images may also be an important aspect of the processof using analogies.However, the measures employed in most analogy studies telllittle about covert mental processing.The most common measure,recall, reveals something about an analogy's influence onretrieving what has already been learned, but tells nothing aboutthe ongoing mental processing involved in the subject's firstcontact with the material. What is needed is a measure of theamount of, mental work involved in the initial processing ofmaterial about science.One such measure depends on people's limited capacity toperform multiple mental tasks.If you ask a companion to; solve amathematical problem in his or her head while walking rapidly,that person will generally walk slower while trying to so)e theproblem.In fact, it is very likely that he or she will slowdown in some proportion to the difficulty of the problem.Solving a mental problem appears to call on at least some of themental resources required for walking--resources that are inshort supply if the problem is difficult enough.The harder theproblem, the more mental resources the person diverts fromwalking to solving the problem.An analogous procedure called asecondary task analysis can be used in the laboratory to measurehow much mental capacity is required for a particular task (Navon& Gopher, 1979, 1980; Posner, 1978; Ogden, Levine & Eisner,1979).Such procedures have only recently been applied to mass8
Analogies, Visualization7media presentations (Reeves. Thorson & Schleuder, in press;Thorson, Reeves & Schleuder, 1984).To discover how much cognitive capacity a task requires, thesubject is asked to perform that "primary" task (listen to anexplanation of a scientific principle, for example).Whileperforming the primary task, the subject must periodicallyperform a "secondary" task (pressing a button that recordsreaction time).The assumption is that mental processing of theprimary and secondary tasks call upon many of the same mentalresources--resources that are in short supply if the primary taskis difficult enough.If the two tasks require a substantialnumber of the same mental resources and if that Joint demandexceeds the available supply of those mental capacities, achange in tht mental resources required for one task will changethe mental resources available to the other task.If the difficulty of the secondary task Ls held constant,the only explanation for a change in performance on that task isthat the primary task is using more or less of the availablemental capacity.It is possible for a person through practice tobecome so good at a task that the task requires little mentalrapacity (Anderson, 1980).But such automation is unlikely to besignificant in a small number of trials with a complex task.One tested method of performing a secondary task analysiswith complex textual material is to have the experimental subjectread or listen to the material with the goal of learning thematerial (Britton, et al., 1978; Britton, 1980; Britton et9
Analogies, Visualizational.,1980).8Periodically dUring the task, the subject is asked torespond to a probe signal as quickly as possible.The variationin reaction time to that signal is taken as a measure of theamount of cognitive capacity taken up by the primary task at thatmoment.Thus, the slower the reaction time on the secondary taskthe more cognitive capacity is assumed to be used by the primarytask.Such reaction time differences have been found for metaphorswhich were logically false but had some figurative or imaginativetruth (Glucksberg, Gildea & Bookin, 1982).1Subjects, spentsignificantly more time to declare a metaphor false than todeclare more literal statements false, indicating that-metaphorsrequired-additional mental processing despite the fact that themetaphors were as obviously false as the literal statements.Themental processing requirements of analogies have never beeninvestigated.1,111.111The distinction between analogy and metaphor is notalways made in the literature. In fact, the terms are often usedThe empirical evidence, however, supportsinterchangeably.Metaphoric capacity does notdistinguishing the two terms.relate to ability to solve ana gies (Pollio & Smith, 1980); ape d ived by breaking down a sentencemetaphor's meaning cannot beinto component parts accora#W-to rules (Hoffman & Honeck, 1980);metaphors as simple propositions are false (Honeck, 1980), andmetaphors seem to produce a readiness for fanciful experie ce(Verbrugge, 1980). Analogies, on the other hand, seem to eordinary, literal language that partially map an unfamiliar areaof experience onto a more familiar area of experience (Gentner,While an analogy that compares water flowing through1983).pipes to the flow of electricity through wires is not preciselytrue, it is not false, fanciful, and difficult to linguisticallydecompose in the same way as a metaphor like "A marriage is arefrigerator" or A poem is a pheasant."110
Analogies, Visualization9What is crucial for analogies is not so much the mentaldemands of processing the analogy itself, but what influencemental availability (activation) of the analogy has on subsequentprocessing of unfamiliar information related toctnalogy.Under those circumstances, if processing the target materialrequired more mental resourc.s, that would indicate that someadditional mental process caused by the analogy is slowingreaction time, thus supporting a view that analogies cause mentalprocessing to be more vivid and concrete.However, if analogieswork by activating and modifying existing cognitive structures,making them more efficient at processing the incoming newinformation, the amount of mental capacity required to processthe new information would be expected to decrease.Thussecondary task reaction times would be expected to be faster withan active analogy guiding the processing.Therefore, anappropriate secondary task analysis should distinguish betweenthese two mechanisms of analogy influence.This can be statedmore formally in terms of competing hypotheses.Hypothesis 1:Subjects processing unfamiliar materialabout science when a relevant analogy isactive will require more cognitiveprocessing capacity to process that materialthan will subjects without such an analogyactivated.
Analogies, VisualizationHypothesis 1:Subjects processing unfamiliar material(Alternative)about science when a relevant analogy is10active will require less cognitive processingcapacity to process that material than willsubjects without such an analogy activated.The literature for visualization does not yield a clearprediction for the effect of active visualization duringprocessing on the amount of cognitive capacity required.Atleast one study (Griffith & Johnston, 19.73) found that avisualization mnemonic was associated with subjects expendingless cognitive processing capacity while studying new materialthan did subjects using a rote mnemonic.Thus, it may be thatvisualization makes encoding more efficient.But a variety ofstudies (Andarson, 1980) indicate that the more complex thevisualization task, the longer the latency to response.Thiswould be compatible with a picture of visualization as anadditinal cognitive process taking up a share of limitedcognitive capacity.Thus a task in which a subject is asked tovisualize while encoding new material may shad light on which ofthese explanat4ons is correct.In addition, if an analogy is more likely to help anactively visualizing subject, one would expect to see the effect12
Analogies, Visualizationof analogy change ;1'q4z)ss levels of viaualizationt11The exact-nature of this interaction depends on whether. analogy increasesor decreases the amount of cognitive capacity required.Ifanalogy increases the amount of cognitive capacity required,k(HypOthesfs 1) then the reaction times for the analogy groupshould increase with visualization more than the non-analogygroup.However, if alternative hypothesis 1 holds, then reactiontimes for the analogy group should decrease with visualization,more than the non-analogy group.Given theie considerationsabout visualization, two additional 'ypotheses can be generated,.Hypothes:id 2:Subjects who are vls,. Uzing while processingnew information about science will require morecognitive capacity for that processing than willsubjects not visualizing.Hypothesis 3:Analogy and visualization treatments will interactso that the effect of analogy on cognitivecapacity will be greater for the visualizationgroup than roi the no-visualizationigroup.
411\Analogies, Visualization12MethodPreparation of Stimulus MaterialsSeventeen analogy passages for concepts or processes inChemistry and Physics were selected from a variety'of sourcesincluding popularized science magazines, physical science texts,and popularized accounts of science written by scientists.Chemiiiiry and Physics were purpOsely selected as being topics inwhich the available subjects (undergraduate journalism students)would have a uniformly low level of interest and knowledge, thusreducing between-subjects variance due to those factors.The analogy passages were rewritten to'shorten them and ,topresent each analogy passage in a standard format.question title.1.A2 A short paragraph introducig.the topic.paragraph explicitly introducing the analogy.4.explaining the scientific concept or process.(See SamplePassage:Appendix.)3. AA paragraphThe format was specifically designed sothat the rest of the material did not depend on the analogyparagraph for comprehension of the material or for continuity.The passages were duplicated and assembled in a booklet,counterbalancing for presentation order.The booklets weredistributed to students in two sections of an advertising copyand layout course.the passages.Subjects were given 40 minutes to rate all ofThe subjects were asked to rate the overallpassage separately from the analogy.Since. not every subject
Analogies, Visualization13finished the booklet in the allotted time, sample sizes varied,but each passage was rated by no fewer than 30 subjects.Subjects were asked to rate each specified quality on ascale of 0 to 10, in which 0 was specified as none of the qualityand 10 was specified as being as much of that quality as thesubject could imagine.Since quality and understandability of the analogies havebeen issues in previous studies (Gabel & Sherwood, 1980; Hayesand Tierney, 1980) the mean ratings for the 'analogy portion ofthe passage were compiled for four qualities--"Connected" (to theoverall passag), "Helpful" (in understanding the overallpassage, "Visual" and "Understandable."The analogy passageswere rank ordered according to their mean score on each of thesequalities.A score of 10 was assigned to having the highest meanon a quality, 9 to the next highest mean and so on to 0.Thesescores were then added together for each analogy on the firstthree qualities mentioned above.The six highest scoringpassages were also the six passages with the highest means for"Understandable" analogy. (See Table 1)These six analogies wereselected as the analogy stimulus materials.The passage with theseventh highest overall score was selected for practice.Insert Table 1 about here15
Analogies, Visualization14To control the pace of the presentation and theNlocation ofthe secondary task probe, the material was read by a maleprofessional radio announcer who was naive to the purpose of thestudy and was recorded on audio tape.Probes to fire a secondarytask strobe light were recorded on a second track of the audiotape using the following rules:tv:INprobes were randomlydistributed in each of three sections of the passage(title-introduction, analogy paragraph, explanation paragraph)with one probe being randomly distributed in the first half ofeach section and one in the second half.passage.)(Six probes in eachProbes were not allowed in the first or last fivewords of a section, and probes were not allowed within ten wordsof each other.The two probes in the title-introduction sectionwere designated RTA (reaction time A) and RTB; the two probes inthe analogy paragraph sere designated RTC and RTD, and the twoprobes in the explanation paragraph were designated RTE and RTF.The no-analogy treatment was prepared by editing out theanalogy paragraph (including tones) when dubbing the passages tothe cassette tapes used in the actual experiment.Note that theanalogy and no-analogy treatments were different lengths and haddifferent numbers of probes (6 vs. 4).It was felt that thealternatives (substituting an unrelated passage, two probeswithout passage, distributing the two probes through the rest ofthe passage) would be as likely or more likely to influenceperformance.The advantage of the current design is that,particularly for the last two probes in any passage, cognitive16
Analogies, Visualization15bchannel capacity expended is measured while the subject isreacting to exactly the same secondary task probes in exactly thesame location in exactly the same material.SubjectsSubjects were 40 undergraduate male and female volunteersfrom advertising, mass media and news writing classes.SubjectsItwere randomly'assigned to one of four conditions: no-analogy,no-visualization (NA-NV); no-analogy, visualization (NA-V);analogy, no-visualization (A-NV), and analogy, visualization(A-V) in a 2 X 2 factorial design.An equipment problem early inthe experiment resulted in the results for four subjects beingdiscarded because more than 20 percent of the RTE and RTF valueswere not recorded by the computer.In the end 36 subjects wereused with 9 subjects in each of the four conditions.ProcedureSubjects were told that their main task was to listen to andremember the material for a test given after each passage.Butwhenever they saw a flash of light, they were to press a buttonas quickly as possible.All subjects were relaxed using a progressive musclerelaxation technique.In addition, V subjects were trained tovisualize material similar to that they were going to hear, usinga modified version of a technique used by Lang (1984).Vsubjects were instructed to continue visualizing the material
Analogies, Visualization16they were about to hear--that this was an important part of theexperiment.To reinforce the visualization instructions, Vsubjects were asked to rate their ability to visualize theprevious passage after taking the recall test for each passage.To further strengthen the V treatment, V subjects were remindedto continue visualizing the material just before listening toeach passage.During the secondary task procedure, each subject was seatedin the experiment room facing a blank white wall.Above them andto their right a strobe light was placed in a corner of theexperiment room near the ceiling and aimed down into the room.The strobe light was attached to photo-stimulator (GrassInstruments Model PS-2D) in an adjacent observation room.Thephoto-stimulator was adjusted, so that a flash from the strobelight could comfortably be detected by the subjects.The stimulus tapes were played on a stereo cassette deck inthe experiment room.The signal from the channel containing thestimulus material was fed into an amplifier in the observation,room and played back over a speaker in the experiment room--withthe volume adjusted to a comfortable listening level.The outputof the tape channel containing the probes to trigger the strobeand to begin timing the secondary task was fed into anotheramplifier, and from there into an Apple II computer.When thecomputer detected a probe, a resident program activated a relaycausing the photo-stimulator to fire the strobe,. Simultaneously,a computer clock timed the interval from the flash firing to the
Analogies, Visualization17subject pressing a reaction time button connected to thecomputer.The computer stored the reaction times by passage andby position within each passage.After relaxation (and visualization training for the Vsubjects) all subjects went through the entire procedure outlinedbelow using a practice passag4 (corresponding to that subject'sparticular A or NA treatment) to ensure' that the subjectunderstood the procedure, to stabilize reaction times, and tofurther encourage subjects to pay close attention to the primarytask material.For each passage, each subject listened to the audio tapeand performed the secondary task procedure.After each tapethere was a 5-second pause, then subjects were given a 90-seconddistraction task (counting backwards by*three's from 5,0001 toensure that recall on the following recall task was not just areport of material still current in short-term memory.Subjectswere then given a five-item recall test for material in thetitle-introduction and the explanation sections t the passagejust heard.analogy.Subjedts were not tested on material In theThe recall tests. were intended to help probe therelationship, if any, between the mental processing measures andrecall.The order of the passages was randomized for each subject tocontrol for order effects across passages (fatigue, practice,etc.)The above procedure was repeated for the practice passageand each of the six test passages.19
Analogies, Visualization18In addition, when subjects first entered the experimentroom, information was gathered on age, gender, major, year inschool, grade point average (both college and high school),number of science courses taken in school (both high school andcollege), self-ratings of interest in science and likelihood ofreading a science article encountered in the print media as wellas a list of broadcast s4pnce programs regularly watched andlistened to.These were intended as measures of generalintelligence, experience with science material, and interest inscience to be used to ensure that the experimental groups did notdiffer significantly on these measures.ResultsReaction times RTE and RTF (the last two reaction timesmeasured in each passage) were used as the dependent variable ina 2 X 2 mixed factorial design with analogy and visualizationtreatments the independent variables.Each reaction time wasnested within the corresponding paSsage and treated as awithin-subject variable.Thus each subject was considered tohave 12 repeated measures (RTE and RTF in six passages).An analysis of variance (BMDP P2V) indicated that only themain effect for visualization was significant, F(1,32) 6.21,p 0.02.2The average visualization group reaction time was.,111111. 11.2The data were visually inspected for obviousdifferences between the treatment groups on interest in scienceNone were found. No obviousand science education variables.pattern emerged relating to the length of a passage and its20
Analogies, Visualization19about 35 msec. slower than the average no-visualization groupreaction time.1).(V 321.53 msec.: NV 286.51 msec.)(FigureHowever, a power analysis indicated insufficient power,.especially for detecting the modest effect size suggested by theresults of the analogy X visualization interaction.Insert Figure 1 About HereThe standard deviations of RTE and RTF were often very large(ranging up to 347 msec. for some passages) apparently due tovery large individual subject variations in reaction time.SinceRTA and RTB (the two reaction times in the title- introductionsection) were responses to exactly the same material for allgroups and since these reaction times were measured beforeanalogy subjects were exposed to the analogy, they ;.!ere.considered appropriate measures of each subject's underlyingreaction time.Thus, RTA and RTB were entered as covariates inan analysis of covariance--controlling for each subject's baseperformance under any of the conditions with either of thedependent measures.21
Analogies, Visualizationreaction time to the secondary task (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).20Theresulting analysis of adjusted means showed a, main effect foranalogy, F(1,31) 4.78,a .04. (Figure 2)The adjusted meanfor the analogy treatment group reaction time was about 12msec. faster than the average no-analogy group adjusted meanreaction time.(A 298.02: NA 310.01 msec.),MII.Insert Figure 2 About HereIt should be noted that since visualization group subjectsreceived visualization training before listening to any of thepassages, the visualization treatment was in effect for RTA andRTB as well as for RTE and RTF.Thus, using the first tworeaction times as a covariate had the unfortu
DOCUMENT RESUME. SE 045 878. Shapiro, Michael A. Analogies, Visualization and Mental Processing of Science Stories. Mey 85 37p.; Paper presented to the Information Systems Division of the International Communication. Association (Honolu]5u, HI-, May, 1985). Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
045 021 cookware, bakeware 045 024 dishwashers 045 025 dishes/utensils 045 030 disposal units 045 040 flatware & cutlery 045 047 irons clothes 045 048 ironing tables & boards 045 050 kitchen units 045 051 mixers 045 052 ovens, microwave 045 054 ranges, stoves electric 045 060 ranges,stoves,ovens gas 045 066 refrigerators & freezers 045 072 .
le c tri c al electrical waterline /bilge steerin g & controls steering body a cc e sso rie s accessories service tools /hardware chemical model year oe no. part no. sea doo 580 gt 90-91 277-000-152 002-045 580 gts 92 277-000-152 002-045 580 gts 93 277-000-229 002-045 580 gts 94 277-000-261 002-045-01 . 800 gti rfi 2004 277-001-010 002-045-08 .
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 275 864 CE 045 460 AUTWOR Sutliff, Ronald D.; And Others TITLE Solid-State Devices. INSTITUTION Marine Corps Inst., Washington, DC. REPORT NO MCI-11-42 PUB DATE 1 Aug 86 NOTE 173p.; Document is set in small type. Some graphics. may not reproduce clearly. PUB TYPE Guides - Classroom Use - Materials (For Learner) (051)
Marcus Whitman hurch 206-878-2013 Midway ovenant hurch 206-878-4861 Normandy hristian hurch 206-878-4740 Open Door aptist hurch 206-851-8640 Prince of Peace Lutheran hurch 206 -2430987 Resurrection Lutheran hurch 206-824-2978 Saltwater Unitarian Un
Historic Main Campus 500 West Broad Street Statesville, NC 28677-5264 (704) 878-3200 Continuing Education Center 701 West Front Street Statesville, NC 28677-5644 (704) 878-3220 Cosmetic Arts Center 3223 Taylorsville Highway Statesville, NC 28625-2966 (704) 878-4372
DOCUMENT RESUME. CG 015 878. Petersen, Robert C. Marijuana and Health. EighthAnnual Report to the U.S. Congress from the Secretary of Health and Human Services 1980. National Inst. on Drug Abuse 1
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 068 564 TM 002 045 TITLE Airplane Stewardess (air trans.) 352.878--Technical. Report on Development of USTES Aptitude Test Battery. INSTITUTION Manpower Administration (DOL), Washington, D.C. U.S. Training and Employment Service. REPORT NO S-43
Answer a is too narrow to be the implied idea. It is based on only one of the four supporting details, statement 1. b. Answer b covers only statements 2 and 4; therefore it is too narrow to be the implied main idea. In addition, it is a conclusion that is not based on the given facts, which say nothing about one group always being better than another. c. Answer c is a general statement about .
