Read the quote about London in the 1200s. Then answer the questions that follow.
"In the thirteenth century, London succeeded in piping water from springs at Tyburn to a fountain in West Cheap, but there was neither pressure nor abundant quantity of water. The authorities intended the fountain to provide drinking water for the poor, and household water for the neighborhood. . . . but the chief sources of water . . . remained the wells, streams, . . . and the River Thames—the ultimate destination of most of London's garbage and sewage."
3. Which of the following statements best expresses what you think about an issue described in the quote?
a. Piping water to a fountain was not a good idea because people would have fought over the water.
b. The poor people in London did not have enough water and the authorities should have drilled wells for them.
c. Dumping garbage and sewage into the Thames polluted it and the water would have been harmful to drink.
d. The authorities should not have piped water from Tyburn because that left the people of Tyburn without water.
4. Why did you choose the statement you did in question 3? Use a decision-making process to explain your answer.
2007-02-13 13:50:08 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
This question is not a history question per se. It is a question regarding an historic fact, but not a question of historical study. The answer is almost sort of a riddle with a correct answer that does not have to even be historically informed. As question "4" put it, this is purely "a decision-making process" question whose purpose is not the study of history but in making proper analysis of a situation and reaching a proper conclusion and defending it satisfactorily. This you must do on your own.
Good Luck!
Oh and BTW Obelix is wrong. There is a correct answer. just read the question carefully.
2007-02-13 14:08:58 · answer #1 · answered by mrleftyfrizzell 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe any of the choices, as given, is correct.
Clearly this measure was not adequate -- London would remain for another 500 years without reliable drinking water -- but surely it was an improvement. There are decent arguments for most of your choices, so I would call this a very bad question.
2007-02-13 14:06:20 · answer #2 · answered by obelix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
y don't u do your own homework and for 3. it would c
For 4. because people in London would die if they drank the polluted water or get very sick.
2007-02-13 14:00:19 · answer #3 · answered by Alysia 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋