Because plants cannot move or talk, most people believe that they have no feelings and that they cannot receive signals from outside. However, this may not be completely true.

People who studied plants have found out that plants carry a small electrical charge . It is possible to measure this charge with a small piece of equipment called "galvanometer". The galvanometer is placed on a leaf off the plant, and it records any changes in the electrical field of the leaf. Humans have a similar field which can change when we are shocked or frightened.

A man called Backster used a galvanometer for his studies of plants and was very surprised at his results. He found that if he had two or more plants in a room and he began to destroy one of them - perhaps by pulling off its leaves or by pulling it out of its pot - then the galvanometer on the leaves of the other plants showed a change in the electrical field. It seemed as if the plants were signalling a feeling of shock. This happened not only when Backster started to destroy plants, but also when he destroyed other living things such as insects .

Backster said that the plants also knew if someone had destroyed a living thing some distance away, because they signalled when a man who had just cut down a tree entered the room.

Another scientist, named Sauvin, achieved similar results to Backster's. He kept galvanometers fixed to his plants all the time and checked regularly to see what the plants were doing. If he was out of the office, he telephoned to find out about the signals the plants were sending. In this way, he found that the plants were sending out signals at the exact times when he felt strong pleasure or pain. In fact, Sauvin could cause a change in the electrical field of his plants over a distance of a few miles simply by thinking about them. What are the answers to this following set of questions: 1. are plants known to carry an electrical charge?
2. What was the piece of equipment backster used?
3. Who was the other scientist who achieved similar results as backster?
4. do humans also have a small electrical field?
5. do plants sense strong pleasure or pain?
6. he pulled off the plants?
7. Could Sauvin change electrical field simply by thinking of them?
8. from what distance?
9. could they sense when other living things were destroyed?
10. most people believe they have no what?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2. A galvanometer.
3. Sauvin.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. It's leaves.
7. Yes.
8. A few miles.
9. Yes.
10. Feelings .

CHAPTER XXIV

JESSIE STRIKES.

It was the afternoon before Vane's departure for the north, and Evelyn, sitting alone for the time being in Mrs. Nairn's drawing-room, felt disturbed by the thought of it. She sympathised with his object, but she supposed there was a certain risk attached to the journey, and that troubled her. In addition to this there was another point on which she was not altogether pleased. She had twice seen Vane acknowledge a bow from a very pretty girl whose general appearance suggested that she did not belong to Evelyn's own walk of life, and that very morning she had noticed him crossing a street in the young woman's company. Vane, as it happened, had met Kitty Blake by accident and had asked her to accompany him on a visit to Celia.

Evelyn did not think she was of a jealous disposition, and jealousy appeared irrational in the case of a man whom she had dismissed as a suitor; but the thing rankled in her mind. While she considered it, Jessie Horsfield entered the room.

"I'm here by invitation, to join Vane's other old friends in giving him a good send-off," she explained.

Evelyn noticed that Jessie laid some stress upon her acquaintance with Vane, and wondered if she had any motive for doing so.

"I suppose you have known him for some time," she said.

"Oh, yes," was the careless answer. "My brother was one of the first to take him up when he came to Vancouver." What are the answers to this following set of questions: 1. Where Vane is going?
2. Where is Evelyn?
3. Whose?
4. Was she by herself?
5. Was she in good mood?
6. Did she think the journey would be risky?
7. Did it bother her?
8. Does she have another reason for not to be happy?
9. Who did she see greeted Vane?
10. How many times she saw that?
11. Was the girl good looking?
12. Was she of the same social class as hers?
13. When she saw him with her?
14. Where?
15. Where they were going?
16. Did Evelyn ever reject him?
17. Who appeared while she was thinking these?
18. Why he came?
19. Did she think he knew him?
20. Where his brother saw him?
Answer: 1. The north
2. In a drawing-room.
3. Mrs. Nairn's
4. Yes
5. Not really.
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Kitty Blake
10. She saw him twice acknowledge a bow
11. Yes
12. No
13. That morning
14. On the street
15. to visit Celia
16. Yes
17. Jessie Horsfield
18. To give him a send off
19. Yes
20. Vancouver

Face-book chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Anna Maria Chavez, chief of American Girl Scouts, are leading a campaign to discourage the use of the word "bossy". Does the term destroy the confidence of young girls?

The campaign claims that terms like "bossy" are improperly applied to females, preventing schoolgirls from seeing themselves as future "leaders". From its first application, the word has been definitely connected more with women than with men. It first appeared in 1882, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, mentioning "a lady manager who was extremely bossy". As late as 2008, the word appeared in reference to females four times more often than males, claim the Ban Bossy campaigners. "To me, the reference is always is association with women," says Helen Trim, director of Fresh Minds. "I have three brothers and my family still call me 'bossy' today." Her father is the only other family member who could be considered in that way, says Trim, but nobody would ever call him so.

Some educators recommend that the word should be reclaimed, rather than banned."But the thing with'bossy' is that there's an infantile element to it,"says Sara Mills, professor at Sheffield University. "You think of 'bossy' as being like a little kid who's claiming more than he has the right to claim."

It's not just"bossy"under fire."Pushy"is another target. The implication is that women shouldn't present themselves as powerful and confident. Mills suggests, which some women are willing to listen to and accept. Trim points out that many modern female business role models are able to be bosses without being labeled'bossy'.And she rarely,if ever, hears the word used within her company. But she says that the damage may be dome much earlier in a woman's life."It does come about from those early teenage years."she says."I think it's impossible to ban a word, but if people are replacing it with words like'confidence'or'assertiveness',we would all be in a much better place." What are the answers to this following set of questions: 1. Who are the two chiefs mentioned?
2. What is the firsts title?
3. and the second?
4. What are they doing?
5. about what?
6. why?
7. how does it do this?
8. when did it first appear?
9. what does it mean?
10. where is this definition?
11. Is this the only harmful word?
12. what else?
13. What do these words imply?
14. What do some educators believe?
15. Are all lady bosses bossy?
16. What could it be replaced with?
17. or?
18. Who suggests this?
19. who is she?
20. where?
Answer:
1. Sheryl Sandberg and Anna Maria Chavez
2. Face-book chief operating officer
3. chief of American Girl Scouts
4. leading a campaign
5. to discourage the use of the word "bossy"
6. prevents schoolgirls from seeing themselves as future "leaders
7. destroys their confidence
8. 1882
9. a lady manager who was extremely bossy
10. Oxford English Dictionary
11. no
12. Pushy
13. women shouldn't present themselves as powerful and confident.
14. it should be reclaimed, rather than banned
15. no
16. confidence
17. assertiveness
18. Sara Mills
19. professor
20. Sheffield University