<p>Oops! It is presentation before planning. I had read the initial performance itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think, with this quote, it’s hard to say it’s not literal.</p>
<p>oh wow nice!</p>
<p>Do we have any new opinions on the “covered over” question?</p>
<p>The covered up question was definitely literal and about the construction. People who say it is metaphorical are grasping at straws…</p>
<p>On the Waterfire passage, was there a question asking about what did NOT happen? </p>
<p>Basically, what was the question where one of the answers was “redirection of the ____ rivers”</p>
<p>The question with the redirection of the rivers was about what happened first. The answer to that was the presentation, if I recall correctly.</p>
<p>The presentation by Barnaby? or was it by someone else?</p>
<p>The presentation by Barnaby, yes. </p>
<p>For those that still doubt the literal/construction answer:</p>
<p>“WaterFire started as a “fire sculpture installation” by local artist Barnaby Evans, which he first presented in 1994, in the midst of the city’s ten-year, $60 million effort to remove the bridges and roadways that had obscured the Providence River”</p>
<p>That part of the passage clearly indicates that bridges and roadways had obscured the Providence River (which came about from construction).</p>
<p>^Something like “the presentation of the city undergoing its largest renewal project?” </p>
<p>–</p>
<p>Grasping at straws? Definitely.</p>
<p>“It used to be hard to find anyone enjoying himself on the banks of the ProvidenceRiver, night or day. Actually, it used to be hard to find the ProvidenceRiver, which had long since been largely covered over.”</p>
<p>See below.</p>
<p>And yet, @alihaq717, this part of the essay supports my answer.</p>
<p>“…Providence’s rivers had become fouled by sewage and industrial waste…”</p>
<p>That would be literal. It was literally covered up with waste? But I think they were referring to the construction anyway.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the river itself was completely obscured by it, also, the fact that they said “covered-up” is not generally used to indicate contamination. </p>
<p>Plus they state right there that it was “obscured”- I don’t know how this answer could be more clear.</p>
<p>My argument was not that it was not literally covered; rather, it was that it was not literally difficult to find (to the point where they needed maps). I suppose that either way, I was and am confused about the question. I still feel as though both work, and not because I want to be correct. The river could have been covered over by construction, true, but the author could have also included the phrase as a metaphorical reason for why a cleanup was necessary. Again…because “Providence’s rivers had become fouled by sewage and industrial waste…”</p>
<p>The answer is certainly not literal. Sewage does not “cover” a river and make it impossible to find. Likewise, regardless of some construction covering the river, it certainly would not make the river impossible to find. “Literal” is a very strong word.</p>
<p>@Graviton: Agreed…the use of the word “literal” immediately made me remove those answer choices. Regardless of the true answer, “metaphorical” still best describes the statement.</p>
<p>@alihaq717: I’m sorry. It might seem like I’m trying to argue with you, but I’m just trying to find a reason why my answer is wrong, not why yours is correct. Even though the answer (well, your answer) is so clear to you, many others are still confused.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t understand how this is not a literal usage of covered. It literally covered the waterway.</p>
<p>I might have to revise my opinion. I did a bit of research and it turns out a bridge completely covered the river for over 1000 feet. Here is a picture of it:</p>
<p><a href=“http://philipmarshall.net/providence/Images/air_1960s_to_East_CCC_1.jpg[/url]”>http://philipmarshall.net/providence/Images/air_1960s_to_East_CCC_1.jpg</a></p>
![http://philipmarshall.net/providence/Images/air_1960s_to_East_CCC_1.jpg[/url]](http://philipmarshall.net/providence/Images/air_1960s_to_East_CCC_1.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>The image did not appear on the test.</p>
<p>What you said is still correct, Graviton. “Literal” is too harsh of a word for for question.</p>
<p>@xavier110 Again, my argument does not stand on attacking the use of the word “covered.”</p>
<p>You’re probably right. Literal is too drastic for the given description. Regardless, what we put is what we put and knowing the answer will not change our score.</p>
<p>As Graviton stated, “regardless of some construction covering the river, it certainly would not make the river impossible to find.”</p>
<p>Your opinion need not revision. Regardless of the 1,000 foot bridge, the use of the word “literal” makes it sound like the river was unknown or inaccessible.</p>