<p>I’m not saying your wrong I probably put that, was the awnser pretty obvious?</p>
<p>I think it was one of the last questions, and it was fairly easy.</p>
<p>I’m telling you, it said midway through revitalization plans (something along those lines), there were slideshow presentations. I vividly remember the midway and being surprised.</p>
<p>The passage stated that they smiled shyly, I thought that that meant they acted shyly. Thus, it was the one about questions.</p>
<p>anyone get “resembled” for prairie dog historic relation to buffalo?</p>
<p>“I’m telling you, it said midway through revitalization plans (something along those lines), there were slideshow presentations. I vividly remember the midway and being surprised.”</p>
<p>Are you sure that the slideshow presentations weren’t for the dances and festivals rather than the actual WaterFire thing itself? I could have sworn that BE presented the actual WaterFire thing before anything happened.</p>
<p>@ xavier110 and anyone else:</p>
<p>Did the construction/revitalization plans answer have something to do with the city planning a ten-year renewal plan, the largest in its history? I can’t remember.</p>
<p>The W-guy (who had the money) presented the slideshow for the project after they had started planning to update Providence. Something along those lines.</p>
<p>@GeddyLeeRulez…</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>I do remember seeing that in 1984 revitalization program members gave presentations to city officials among others…right?</p>
<p>i think you’re wrong on the “covered up” question. i initially had the literal construction answer, then when i went beack to check it, it word for word stated it was covered up by sewage.</p>
<p>If we’re talking about the same thing, I agree with you. Are you talking about the question that’s asking if being able to find the river is metaphorical or literal?</p>
<p>To me, it was immediately not meant literally. It was not impossible to find the river. That left metaphorically, and being covered up with sewage and pollution was supported by information in the passage. The river was not impossible to find, so it was obviously not literal…</p>
<p>Does anyone else agree? Please don’t attack me if I’m wrong; I am just looking to provide an alternate theory. To be literal would mean that the river would be unable to be found under any circumstances…</p>
<p>^I put metaphorical and chose that people forgot about it. Why would it even be brought up if it were literal?</p>
<p>^I am very unsure about what the real answer is now^</p>
<p>i completely agree skaggs, and yes that’s what i was talking about.</p>
<p>for the thing that came first</p>
<p>I thought it was that the rivers were diverted </p>
<p>And then only after that, they made plans to revitalize it</p>
<p>Also, what was the “pedestrian-friendly” question?</p>
<p>@RocknPiano - Exactly. People were still able to locate the river. It was an expression used to be both satirical and metaphorical. The author stated something along the lines of, “…In fact, some would say they were even unable to find the river.” </p>
<p>This was because it was covered in pollution and sewage. (Information that came directly from the essay.)</p>
<p>This led to the point in the essay that stressed that the river needed cleanup. This is why the metaphorical use of “unable to find the river” was included in the essay. Not because people couldn’t locate where the river was…but to stress the need of a cleanup. </p>
<p>EDIT: And even though I disagree with the second part of your answer, RocknPiano, I agree that it is metaphorical. People could have forgot about the river, but the point was that it was so heavily polluted that a river was indistinguishable. This point most directly relates to the environmental side of the essay.</p>
<p>Was one of the answers Barnaby created WaterFire or something like that? I think I put that but looks like I’m wrong</p>
<p>Pretty sure it was literal because the polution wasn’t in the same paragraph</p>
<p>I think that the general consensus is that the man accredited for starting the movement had a name like Warner or Wilson or something.</p>
<p>I agree, thequestionmark. Literal makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>No I know William Warner was the primary motivation…</p>
<p>I’m talking about the question about “which came first” - was one of them about Barnaby by chance? I got it wrong I’m thinking</p>
<p>And I think literal DOES make sense…</p>
<p>Btw I don’t know if this would help but here is the article</p>
<p>[Providential</a> Happening | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian Magazine](<a href=“http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Providential_Happening.html]Providential”>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Providential_Happening.html)</p>