This entire preface to the introduction acts as an abstract to the article, giving the purpose as to why the research was conducted. The reason for research was to examine whether congressional staff recognize the preferences of their members.

• Part of why Britain wanted its advantageous relationship with India was to pay off its debts to other powers, such as those in the New World.

• The British economic strategy in India was to buy raw materials from India and sell Indians products, often made from those materials.
• To do this, the British got rid of taxes and protections for local businesses so they could directly compete with them
• This strategy succeeded sometimes and caused some traditional production industries to go out of business
• This arrangement meant that overall, the British got to profit off of the manufacture of these items

• The British government took over ruling India instead of the EIC in 1858
• Perhaps the British government took over ruling India instead of the East India Company because after the uprising, ruling over colonial states was viewed as a more militant and political task than an economic one.

• The East India Company, as a for-profit, wanted to be able to do business without restrictions in India.
• The best way to guarantee this was to gain political alliances (by paying the Mughal emperor to let them trade), then starting in the second half of the 1700s, control (by later actually conquering areas) of territories.

• Over the course of British imperialism, Brits seeked to replace traditional Indian cultures and religions with British culture
• An example is Lord Macaulay in 1835 looking to make English the government language and Western education central.

The Quest for Truth

The quest for Truth is everywhere and not limited to the economic topics linked here. This is just a topic that started a thought process where I had access to a convenient tool (Hypothesis) to bookmark my thoughts and research.

Primary thought is: The Quest for Truth. Subcategories would provide a structured topic for the thought. In this case the subcategory would be: US Economy, Inflation

The TRUTH is a concept comprised of inconsistencies and targets that frequently move.

Targets (data, methods, people, time, semantics, agenda, demographic, motive, means, media, money, status) hold a position in time long enough to fulfill a purpose or agenda. Sometimes they don't consciously change, but history over time shines light and opens cracks in original narrative that leads to new truth's, real or imagined.

Verifying and validating certain Truth is very difficult. Why is That?

This brings an important issue about our relationship with narcotic substances, dating back from Victorian times. It would be interesting to learn how this plays a role in the story (or if it does) and perhaps it would lead us to uncovering the darkest motives of the character/s.

Phosphate deficient soils are common. Fertilization with phosphate results in eutrophication

Prolonged treatment with antibiotics has risks, which justifies this study.

The motive of this study is to distinguish between two models of pollen tube guidance to the ovule. In model 1, the female gametophyte produces a signal that guides the pollen tube to the micropyle. In the second, model sporophytic signals control both megagametophyte development and produces a signal.

Motive of these study

A bit of a side note, but I think it's interesting how much Burke relies on "motive" in part to determine the "who, what, when, where, how" of an act. In a court of law in the U.S. judicial system, the only facets of guilt that a prosecution is required to establish are: means (person had ability to do a crime) and opportunity (person had the ability to be at the time and place of a crime). Motive (person had a reason to commit a crime) is something that juries like to hear, but is not legally required to establish guilt. Just an interesting comparison, I think. That our legal system puts so little weight on the "motive" of an act and so much more on the "facts" or the "who what when where and how" of an act--as if they exist separately from one another. Whereas for Burke, "motive" cannot really exist apart from the answers to those questions.

Motive always orbit any discussion of rhetoric.

Hdt. 1.1 motive; bias? H's idea of glory and great deeds? "not be forgotten in time" -- I agree this is important.

This whole section just seemed super deceptive to me.