Read this excerpt from "Mad Cow, Furious Farmer.”

The disease was first detected in England in 1986, though some scientists think the very first cases started at least ten years before. Cows usually eat only grass and other plants, but farmers had been feeding them a meat and bone mixture that made the cows plumper. But somehow, at least one batch of the mixture had become contaminated with what was then an unknown killer: a prion.

By 1993, British farmers were reporting up to one thousand new cases of BSE a week. Governments all around the world reacted by increasing testing for the disease and not allowing any cows to be eaten if they were at risk of having the disease. As sheep can also get a prion disease called scrapie, they were tested as well. Farmers were angry that they were losing their livestock, and nobody knew how to protect cows and people from the disease.

Consumers were also in a panic when they learned about BSE, and for a very good reason: prions are infectious. If you eat a prion from a "mad cow” or sheep, you are at risk for developing a human version of BSE. The public felt betrayed that their governments had underreacted to the problem or covered it up.

Eventually, in 1997, governments began to ban farmers from feeding their livestock high-risk meat and bone mixtures. With that ban, the epidemic quickly peaked, and by 2010 had largely disappeared. Over the years, half a million cows and two hundred people had been killed by prions.

What is the main idea of this excerpt?

Mad cow disease ended because of government bans on feeding cows certain foods, but people were angry that governments did not act sooner.
Mad cow disease was originally caused when governments allowed for cows’ food sources to be contaminated, so people were angry at their leaders.
Both farmers and customers had been aware of mad cow disease, but they did not think their governments should have done anything to stop it.
Both farmers and customers protested to prevent their governments from interfering with the farming and se

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."