Question

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. In these days we can kindle a fire without any trouble, because we can easily get a match; but we must remember that the match is one of the most wonderful things in the world, and that it took men thousands of years to learn how to make one. Let us learn the history of this familiar little object, the match.

Fire was first given to man by nature itself. When a forest is set on fire by cinders from a neighboring volcano, or when a tree is set ablaze by a thunderbolt, we may say that nature strikes a match. In the early history of the world, nature had to kindle all the fires, for man by his own effort was unable to produce a spark. The first method, then, of getting fire for use was to light sticks of wood at a flame kindled by nature—by a volcano, perhaps, or by a stroke of lightning. These firebrands were carried to the home and used in kindling the fires there. The fire secured in this way was carefully guarded and was kept burning as long as possible. But the flame, however faithfully watched, would sometimes be extinguished. A sudden gust of wind or a sudden shower would put it out. Then a new firebrand would have to be secured, and this often meant a long journey and a deal of trouble.

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.

How does the author develop the idea that humanity's early fire-starting tools may have been dangerous? Please respond in three to five complete sentences, using evidence from the text to support your answer. (5 points)

Answer 1

With the 100's and early times

Step-by-step explanation:

as stated in the article,"When a forest is set on fire by cinders from a neighboring volcano, or when a tree is set ablaze by a thunderbolt, we may say that nature strikes a match." Now, that doesn't seem very safe does it? And for the 1800's, the example here is the wild sputtering as said like this: "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." Now, would you want to risk being being hurt by cinders or sputtering fire? Without the acid was safer, but not too safe. Plus, acids and chemicals often cause health problems. (As well as the ashes from fires) Hope this Helped!

Answer 2

Answer: The story focuses less on the ways man used to start fires and more on the ways that nature started fires independently of humans. That being said, it would seem as though the author is trying to express the fragility of fire early on, and it does seem as though he/she is saying that early on, humans just found a small amount of fire from a really dangerous origin to use as a kindling. The author develops the idea that humanity’s early fire-starting tools may have been dangerous by saying that “it took thousands of years to learn how to make [a match].” Because it took such a long time, it must not have been easy. The author continues to develop this idea by informing us that the first way man was able to use fire was by collecting fire produced by lighting or volcanos, which is certainly life-threatening and very dangerous. The author finishes up the history by saying that the fire was often put out, which would call for constant long and arduous journeys to collect the fire once again. With the 100's and early times as stated in the article,"When a forest is set on fire by cinders from a neighboring volcano, or when a tree is set ablaze by a thunderbolt, we may say that nature strikes a match." Now, that doesn't seem very safe does it? And for the 1800's, the example here is the wild sputtering as said like this: "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." Now, would you want to risk being being hurt by cinders or sputtering fire? Without the acid was safer, but not too safe. Plus, acids and chemicals often cause health problems. The line that shows the value of the match it's the second one it was a long, long time before they learned how to kindle one easily". The match allows humankind to handle fire easily.The match is a significant invention that was produced after a historical evolution of kindling fires.The main idea is how fire kindling evolved to what it is today.

Strawberry Hopes: "Hey there! Strawberry Cow here! I hope this helps! Have a Cow-Tastic morning!"

~Strawberry Cow~