And improve both safety and performance.
This sentence form a paragraph. Proofread them for sentence fragments. Select “complete” if the sentence is complete or “fragment” if the sentence is a fragment.
A) complete B) fragment
B) fragment
You might also like to view...
The purpose of this selection is to
The Vietnam Commitment 1) In 1965 the Department of Defense released a film intended for American soldiers about to embark for service in Vietnam and designed to explain why the United States had found it necessary to commit so many lives and resources to the defense of a small and distant land. The film was entitled Why Vietnam? – a question many Americans have pondered and debated in the decades since. The debate has proceeded on two levels. At one level is an effort to assess the broad objectives Americans believed they were pursuing in Vietnam. At another is an effort to explain how and why policymakers made the specific decisions that led to the American commitment. 2) The Defense Department film itself offered one answer to the question of America’s broad objectives, an answer that for a time most Americans tended to accept: The United States was fighting in Vietnam to defend freedom and stop aggression; and it was fighting in Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism into a new area of the world, to protect not only Vietnam but also the other nations of the Pacific that would soon be threatened if Vietnam itself were to fall. This explanation – that America intervened in Vietnam to defend its ideals and its legitimate interests – continued to attract support well after the war ended. Journalist Norman Podhoretz’s 1982 book Why We Were in Vietnam argued that America was in Vietnam to “save the Southern half of that country from the evils of communism” and that the tragic events in Indochina since 1975 have proven the essential morality of the American cause. Political scientist Guenter Lewy contended, in America in Vietnam (1978), that the United States entered Vietnam to help an ally combat “foreign aggression.” R.B. Smith argued that Vietnam was a vital American interest, that the global concerns of the United States required a commitment there. And historian Ernest R. May stated: “The paradox is that the Vietnam War, so often condemned by its opponents as hideously immoral, may well have been the most moral or at least the most selfless war in all of American history. For the impulse guiding it was not to defeat an enemy or to serve a national interest; it was simply not to abandon friends.” 3) Other scholars have taken a starkly different view: that America’s broad objectives in Vietnam were not altruistic, that the intervention was a form of imperialism – part of a larger effort by the United States after World War II to impose a particular political and economic order on the world. “The Vietnam War,” historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in Anatomy of a War (1985), “was for the United States the culmination of its frustrating postwar effort to merge its arms and politics to halt and reverse the emergence of states and social systems opposed to the international order Washington sought to establish.” Economist Robert Heilbroner, writing in 1967, saw the American intent as somewhat more defensive; the intervention in Vietnam was a response to “a fear of losing our place in the sun,” to a fear that a communist victory “would signal the end of capitalism as the dominant world order and would force the acknowledgement that America no longer constituted the model on which the future of world civilization would be mainly based. And Marilyn Young, in The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990, argues that the United States intervened in Vietnam as part of a broad and continuing effort to organize the post-World War II world along lines compatible with American interests and ideals. 4) Those who looked less at the nation’s broad objectives than at the internal workings of the policymaking process likewise produced competing explanations. Journalist David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest (1972) argued that policymakers deluded themselves into thinking they could achieve their goals in Vietnam, suppressing or dismissing information that might have suggested otherwise. The foreign policy leaders of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were so committed to the idea of American activism and success that they refused to consider the possibility of failure; the Vietnam disaster was thus, at least in part, a result of the arrogance of the nation’s leaders. 5) Larry Berman, a political scientist, offered a somewhat different view in Planning a Tragedy (1982). Lyndon Johnson never believed that the American prospects in Vietnam were bright or that a real victory was within sight, Berman argued. Johnson was not misled by his advisers. He committed American troops to the war in 1965 not because he expected to win but because he feared that allowing Vietnam to fall would ruin him politically. To do otherwise, Johnson believed, would destroy his hopes for winning approval of his Great Society legislation at home. 6) Leslie H. Gelb, an official in the Defense Department in the 1960s, produced another, related explanation for American intervention, which saw the roots of the involvement in the larger imperatives of the American foreign policy system. In The Irony of Vietnam: the System Worked, published in 1979 and written in collaboration with political scientist Richard K. Betts, Gelb argued that intervention in Vietnam was the logical, perhaps the inevitable result, of a political and bureaucratic order shaped by certain ideological assumptions. The American foreign policy system was wedded to the doctrine of containment and operated, therefore, in response to a single, overriding imperative: the need to prevent the expansion of communism. However high the costs of intervention, policymakers believed , the costs of not intervening, of allowing South Vietnam to fall, would be higher. Only when the national and international political situation had shifted to the point where it was possible for American policymakers to reassess the costs of the commitment—to conclude that the costs of allowing Vietnam to fall were less than the costs of continuing the commitment (a shift that began to occur in the early 1970s)—was it possible for the United States to begin disengaging. 7) More recent studies have questioned the idea that intervention was inevitable or that there were no viable alternatives. David Kaiser, in American Tragedy, argues that John Kennedy was not, in fact, the hawkish supporter of escalation that he has often been portrayed as, but a man whose deep skepticism about the judgment of his military advisors has led him to believe that the United States should find a negotiated settlement to the war. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, harbored no such skepticism and sided with those who favored a military solution. The death of John Kennedy, therefore, becomes a vital event in the history of America in Vietnam. 8) That the debate over the Vietnam War has been so continuous over the past quarter century is a reflection of the enormous role the United States’ failure there has played in shaping the way Americans have thought about politics and policy ever since. Because the “lessons of Vietnam” remain a subject of intense popular concern, the debate over the history of Vietnam is likely to continue. a. convince the reader that the U.S. government should not have been involved in Vietnam. b. discuss various points of view explaining why the U.S. government fought in Vietnam. c. convince the reader that the U.S. should have tried to win the war in Vietnam. d. persuade the reader that in the future the U.S. should not become involved in a similar war.
¡A LEER! La idea principal. Lee lo que dice una española sobre «11M», un atentado (attack) terrorista en España. Luego empareja cada párrafo con la descripción más adecuada.
(1) «11M» (11 de marzo de 2004—unas bombas estallaron en una estación de tren en Madrid) fue una desgracia nacional, fue un mazazo (crushing blow) para España porque ya había ocurrido lo de Nueva York (el once de septiembre, «el 9/11»). También para mucha gente fue una cosa terrible e inexplicable. Pensamos que los fallos (mistakes) de seguridad que habían tenido los Estados Unidos, pues, pensábamos que a nosotros en Europa era menos probable que nos pudiera ocurrir. Y menos en un país como el nuestro, con un terrorismo interno tan terrible y que nos ha hecho sufrir durante tantísimos años y nos sigue haciendo sufrir. (2) Fue un día trágico; mucha gente nos echamos a la calle a ver que se podía hacer, desde donar sangre a llevar heridos (the wounded). Yo tuve la gran suerte de que nadie de mi familia estuvo, ni de cerca, ni de lejos, pero al final, todos teníamos a alguien que conocíamos. Pero cercano a mí tuve la gran suerte de no sufrirlo. Lo sufrí pues como el resto: una tristeza espantosa. (3) Estuvimos más de un mes y medio sin responder, no se iba a los espectáculos (shows). Todo el mundo cuando acababa sus trabajos, nos íbamos a casa. O sea, fue un acto realmente duro (hard) para la ciudadanía, y luego hubo una gran manifestación (protest). Yo no he visto una manifestación de tanta gente. Incluso decíamos que el cielo estaba también llorando porque fue una manifestación con una lluvia continua, ocho horas lloviendo y todo el mundo estábamos allí, porque queríamos decir que eso no lo podíamos consentir. (4) Luego, al día siguiente, hubo unas elecciones, pero una desgracia también porque se distorsionó mucho lo que luego pasó. Un partido político intentó (tried) hacer todo lo posible por quitarle la importancia a esas elecciones, porque no fueran legales. (5) Y luego, salió todo tipo de rumores, diciendo que prácticamente había sido desde dentro quien había hecho eso. Por suerte, ya ha acabado el juicio. Todavía no han salido las sentencias, pero se ha demostrado perfectamente que era lo que todo el mundo pensamos: un ataque terrorista de estas personas absolutamente fuera de lógica, que son capaces (capable) de perder su vida, pero que con ello, se llevan a mucha más gente. ___ 1. La idea principal del primer párrafo (1) es que… ___ 2. La idea principal del segundo párrafo (2) es que…. ___ 3. La idea principal del tercer párrafo (3) es que…. ___ 4. La idea principal del cuarto párrafo (4) es que…. ___ 5. La idea principal del quinto párrafo (5) es que…. a. el ataque impactó a toda la ciudadanía de alguna manera u otra. b. después de chismes de que el terrorismo venía del estado, se entendió que fue un acto de un terrorista suicida. c. después de un período para recuperarse, hubo una protesta. d. hubo algo de escándalo en las próximas elecciones políticas. e. ocurrió un ataque terrorista.
Answer the following statement(s) true (T) or false (F)
____ 1. Según Carolina, la agricultura es muy importante para el desarrollo de Colombia. ____ 2. Colombia produce mucho café, pero no cultiva otros productos. ____ 3. La producción del café requiere tecnología avanzada. ____ 4. Colombia solo produce una especie de café. ____ 5. Los Estados Unidos es el importador de café más grande del mundo.
Which of the following statements is true of intimate partner violence?
a. it is no longer a serious problem in the U.S. b. it often goes unreported c. men are as likely as women to be victims of it d. it has increased dramatically in recent years