HELP GIVING BRAINLIEST In 1827, John Walker, a druggist in a small English town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. The druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. It is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. Although Walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. In a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. The match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. It would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. This was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar.

What is the main idea of the last paragraph?
Early matches were dangerous and awkward.
John Walker made the first match.
Phosphorus was the key to the modern match.
Walker's match was better than what came before.

There never was a time when the world was without fire, but there was a time when men did not know how to kindle fire; and after they learned how to kindle one, it was a long, long time before they learned how to kindle one easily.

What is the main purpose of this sentence in the essay?
To describe the misery of early human existence
To explain how early fires were started
To suggest humans have an easier life than we once did
To support the idea that matches really changed human life

Which fact from the tinker vs des moines court decision best supports the reasoning that the conduct of the student protesters was protected by the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits deprivation of life liberty, or property? apex

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."

Which characteristic do zulu and boshongo share