Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Morrison

    Uploaded by

    daniel
    150 views1 page
    The document discusses two interpretations of the building of the Middlesex Canal: (1) as a "botching of a simple process" or (2) as an achievement comparable to landing on the moon. The response argues the latter is more accurate, supported by three examples from the text. It was a remarkable feat like the moon landing, which also encountered unknowns and costs. First, canal builders had to repeatedly "puddle" to prevent leaks, as no solid solution was known. Second, surveying instruments were mishandled, causing errors. Third, the Romans had used strong mortar, but this knowledge was lost, leading to initial problems.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Morrison.docx.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses two interpretations of the building of the Middlesex Canal: (1) as a "botching of a simple process" or (2) as an achievement comparable to landing on the moon. The response argues the latter is more accurate, supported by three examples from the text. It was a remarkable feat like the moon landing, which also encountered unknowns and costs. First, canal builders had to repeatedly "puddle" to prevent leaks, as no solid solution was known. Second, surveying instruments were mishandled, causing errors. Third, the Romans had used strong mortar, but this knowledge was lost, leading to initial problems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    150 views1 page

    Morrison

    Uploaded by

    daniel
    The document discusses two interpretations of the building of the Middlesex Canal: (1) as a "botching of a simple process" or (2) as an achievement comparable to landing on the moon. The response argues the latter is more accurate, supported by three examples from the text. It was a remarkable feat like the moon landing, which also encountered unknowns and costs. First, canal builders had to repeatedly "puddle" to prevent leaks, as no solid solution was known. Second, surveying instruments were mishandled, causing errors. Third, the Romans had used strong mortar, but this knowledge was lost, leading to initial problems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Morrison claims that the building of the Middlesex Canal can be seen in one of two ways: (1) "a

    continual and almost systematic botching of a very simple process"; or (2) "as an exercise rather more
    remarkable than [landing a man on the moon]" (Page 29). Which interpretation do you consider more
    accurate, and why? Use three examples to explain your argument.

    The remarkable feat of landing on the moon, to me, is the most accurate comparison when talking
    about the creation of the Middlesex canal. NASA encountered many different unknowns, on its journey
    to put a man on the moon. In the end, there was success, but often not without great costs including
    loss of human life, i.e. the Apollo 1 mission. Even today the great unknowns of space still exist and every
    day new lessons are learned. Much was the same for early canal designers, engineers, diggers, workers,
    etc.

    The first example of this can be seen on page 28, when William Weston told the men who came to him
    on his death bed seeking the answer for how to prevent the canal from leaking and he replied ‘“you
    puddle,” he said. They said they had. “Then,” said he, “puddle again – and again – and
    again.”’(Morrison,28) This leads the reader to believe that there wasn’t a solid answer for preventing
    the canal from leaking, so sticking to his original thoughts, the “expert” told them to keep repeating the
    process until it no longer leaked.

    Another example is that of the surveying levels. Not knowing the instruments were sensitive and easily
    knocked out of calibration, they were often mishandled as illustrated on pages 28-29 of Morrison. The
    mishandling caused the outputs to often be incorrect leading to a comedy of compounded errors.

    The final example is that of the mortar that washed away underwater. Long before the canal was built,
    hydraulic cement was used by the romans. However, through poor education practices, and many years
    passing, its properties and uses became little known. Morrison describes this on page 27-28 In the end,
    the challenges were mostly overcome and the canal became operational. It also however, became a
    source for naysayers of the Erie canal.

    You might also like