Reveal Math Grade 6 Volume 1 Answer Key

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Amaia Novara

unread,
Aug 3, 2024, 5:26:47 PM8/3/24
to atcerfirac

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

Answer Choice B: 10. This response reflects half of the height of the cylinder. A student who selects this response may not understand how to use the formula for the volume of a cylinder or the relationship between the dimensions of the cylinder.
20 2 = 10

Answer Choice D: 4. This response reflects the radius of the cylinder. A student who selects this response may understand how to use the formula for the volume of a cylinder, but may not understand the relationship between the radius and diameter of the cylinder or attend to precision when answering the question posed in the problem.

Answer options A, B, and D are plausible but incorrect. They represent common student errors made when using the formula of a cylinder to solve real-world and mathematical problems. Answer option C represents the correct process used to solve for the diameter of a cylinder given the volume and height.

Let me say, too, I want to thank your school officials, Superintendent Cline and your principal, Rod Jenkins. And Melissa Hagen did a good job, don't you think? I thought she did a really good job. Maybe she'll be coming back here someday to hold a town meeting like this; you can't tell.

Is Cindy Baker here? Stand up. Cindy Baker has three children, one of whom is a student in this school. She wrote me a half a dozen times in the election, pleading with me to come to Chillicothe. So I thought since she was the first person who invited me, she should be here at this meeting.

I also want you to know, you know, we had those famous bus tours, you remember, Hillary and I and Al and Tipper Gore. What you may not know is the people who owned the bus company that we used all during the bus tours all across America are from Ohio. They're from Columbus, and they are here: Barbara and Tom Sabatino and Kerwin and Regina Elmers. Would they stand? They're here somewhere, I think. Yes, in the back. There's Tom, my bus driver. Give him a hand. [Applause] Thanks. If it hadn't been for them, we might not have won the election. [Laughter]

Now, let me just make a couple of introductory remarks, and then we'll get right to the questions, because I want to just restate very briefly how I came to the plan that I announced to the Congress a couple of nights ago.

First, let me say that I was Governor for 12 years of a State with a lot of towns like this one, a lot of counties like Ross County, a lot of manufacturing facilities like the Mead Paper facility here that worked our people and a lot of people who worked on the farm. And we had a pretty tough time in the eighties. We lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, a lot of farm jobs. A lot of our small towns got in trouble. And I was forced to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how we could change things to make a better future for the hard-working good people of my State. So a lot of what I believe about all this goes directly to the experience that I've had for many years working with people like you.

If I might, let me just mention one or two things. A lot of our problems stem from all the pressures we're having now in a global economy and stem from the fact that we've got some problems here at home which make it difficult for us to compete in that economy. We have a higher percentage of poor children. We have much more diversity than many of the countries with which we compete. And historically, we have never had the kind of partnership between Government and business and working people that some other countries have. So, for example, if you read yesterday Boeing is laying off a lot of employees in the airline manufacturing business-not affecting Ohio, but it's a big thing for America, in part because of defense cuts but in part because Europe put $26 billion into the airbus project, a direct taxpayer investment, to make sure they could make airplanes that would compete with Boeing, something that we haven't historically done.

So we have a new global economy in which there are great opportunities but new challenges. We have some problems here at home that make it hard for us to compete. We have to educate a higher percentage of our people at a higher level. We have to provide basic health care to everybody but control health care costs. All of our major manufacturers are spending 30 percent more for health care than all their competitors around the world, and that puts them in a real bind. And we have many other challenges of this kind that we have to face.

Now, for the last 12 years we have followed a certain approach there. We have said as a nation our policy is to keep taxes low on the wealthiest Americans in the hope that they will invest in our economy and make it grow. And that worked. In the last 12 years, the tax burden basically went up on the middle class, went down on the wealthiest Americans, and according to a study released last year, about 70 percent of the economic gains of the last decade went to the top 1 or 2 percent of the people in the country. That was a deliberate decision that was made to try to free up that money in the hope that it would be invested to create new jobs for everybody else.

Also, our theory was that the Government should not be too active. So we didn't deal with a lot of the issues that other Governments around the world were dealing with, in Japan, in Germany and other countries, for example. And we actually reduced our investment of your money in a lot of things that make jobs, like the Community Development Block Grant program, which cities in Ohio like because they provide funds not only to do things like repair your parks but also to build roads and rail networks and other support systems for new industry if you're trying to get them into a community. We sort of held the lid on that on the theory that we should just put a big bind on the Government, and all Government spending was bad, and all Government activity should be discouraged, and we'll just see what happens.

Well, there have been some not-too-bad years in the last 12. But overall, we've still got a lot of problems. Unemployment's too high. Most people are working harder for lower wages. Health care costs are exploding, but fewer people have health care coverage in this country than any other major country in the world. And the insecurity of losing health insurance is one of the major problems for many, many American families. And we are not educating a high enough percentage of our people at very high levels to compete in this global economy. And because we lowered taxes a lot on the wealthy but could not control the health care costs the Government was spending, we starting running bigger deficits. So that even though we reduced our investment in things like aid for small cities to create jobs, the cost of health care and the cost of interest on our debt exploded, so we've got a huge Government deficit. Our national debt is now 4 times as big as it was in 1980.

Number one, we cut spending, 150 different specific spending cuts, putting a lid on Federal pay increases, cutting the White House staff by 25 percent, cutting the administrative costs of the Federal Government by 14 percent over 4 years, saving billions and billions of dollars.

Number two, we raise funds in taxes in a way that I think is fair, with 70 percent of the money coming from people whose incomes are above $100,000 and with a broad-based energy tax that would affect a little bit on oil, a little bit on natural gas, a little bit on coal, so we wouldn't hit any region of the country too much.

The other thing that you will hear from some of my critics, and so I want to tell you it's true, is that we did actually increase some funds: in the short run, with a plan to jumpstart the economy by creating a half million new jobs; and over the long run, with increases in education programs from Head Start to worker retraining, to apprenticeship programs for high school grads who don't go on to college, to increased access to college loans, to retraining for workers who lose their jobs when there are defense cuts or other cuts in our industry. We have to do that because that's what determines what people's incomes are and whether you can keep people working. We also did increase funds in direct aid to things that create jobs: new technologies and investments to put people to work.

So it's a balanced program: deep spending cuts, tax increases fairly applied, and new investments in the areas that create jobs. That's what I'm trying to do. The Congress will decide to vote for it in part based on whether people in towns like Chillicothe all over America think it's a good deal.

I can tell you this: The price of doing the same thing is higher than the price of my program. And I'll just give you one example and open the floor to questions. Just since the election, since we made it absolutely clear that we were determined to bring down the deficit, interest rates, long term, have begun to drop. If you look at the difference in long-term interest rates on election day and where they were after I made my speech to Congress, a lot of the people who might have spent $10 or $12 or $15 more per month in energy costs, directly and indirectly, will save much more than that if they're paying a home mortgage, a note on a car, they've got consumer credit, or they otherwise have to borrow money.

That's because if you bring the deficit down, you not only free up tax dollars to spend on education and other things, you free up money in the private sector to borrow at lower interest rates. So an awful lot of people are going to save a lot of money on this program immediately. It will create jobs immediately. And the price of it, I am confident, is lower than the price of doing the same old thing.

So I thank you for being here. I want to say a special word of thanks to all these Ohio elected officials who are here. I presume they've all been introduced, but I saw Senator Glenn and Senator Metzenbaum and Speaker Rifle, a lot of others here. I thank them for being here. And we're here for you. So thank you very much, and I'll take questions.

c80f0f1006
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages