<p>Madame, I was debating about putting illogical, but I think that the passage did not indicate that the attorney's argument was illogical, rather "misleading."</p>
<p>but passage 2 would never consider the lawyer's stuff misleading. it clarifies and makes it more logical. we are talking about in context of passage 2 right?</p>
<p>My mistake, my last comment was talking about passage 1. The "manipulation part of my answer was talking about passage 1."</p>
<p>i think you are refering to another question that asked how passage 1 would say about passage 2's argument and that answer was minipulation</p>
<p>Your probably right. Like 3 of those questions seemed almost the same to me and I answered them extremely fast because of some extenuating circumstances... Concerning your "illogical" answer, if that is the answer to what the author of passage 1 is saying, i would agree.</p>
<p>gyros, i always see you in denial on these boards, defending the wrong answer 'til death. :/</p>
<p>frustration, it was. the first paragraph was kinda whiny; the researcher was complaining about how everything had been done, which was naive (was that an answer to another q in the section?), but she got over it when she began researching the mysterious deep blue sea.</p>
<p>do you guys remember, one of the passages asked what 'raw' meant?
and the choices were like, unprocessed, curious [not too sure if that was one of the choices], vulgar, and some other stuff</p>
<p>can someone summarize what passage 2 was about?</p>
<p>i had to spend 6 minutes in that section re-gridding 4 sections back 1 section, so i rushed through all the qs and only read whatever was referenced in the qs and the immediate surroundings.</p>
<p>so, i got the gist that the first one was a guy complaining about a couple of different cases where lawyers were manipulative and lying arses, and jurors were easily fooled.</p>
<p>then the second one also acknowledged the common misconception that laywers are slick-talking con men, but spent the majority of the time proving the efficacy of one method, which was trying to clarify the defendant's beliefs?</p>
<p>edit: i put down unprocessed. raw as in the lawyers piecing together raw testimonies or.. uhh, segmented accounts, right?</p>
<p>it was either inexperienced or unprocessed because they added the word "refined" after which made unprocessed to make sense.
Did you guys put fear and explore for that nemo passage? ALso did you put concede a point karch for when he talks about the variety of animal life on the sea floor.?</p>
<p>concede a point, yes.</p>
<p>concede a point
raw =unprocessed
acknowledged the common misconception</p>
<p>what was acknowledged the common misconception? that was not a choice for the nemo passage.. and i still think its fear and wanting or w/e that choice said.</p>
<p>actually i dont know what was "acknoledge the common misconception."
and i still believe it is fear and wanting to explore the sea too</p>
<p>nooooo it was curiosity. i don't think it said 'jealous' in the passage.</p>
<p>If it did not say jealous then it is exhilaration. Curiosity is out of the boat because if they took jealous out exhilaration fits in perfect. However it did say jealous so frustration fits the boat perfectly.</p>
<p>gyros how many can u miss on math and cr to get 700's for nov?</p>
<p>I would say for CR well... supposedly i missed 8 on CC... and got a 710. Thats all i can say about that. And for math I think the curve will be semi-ok so probably about -4 or 5. i hope at least.</p>
<p>i agree gyros. it really depends whether you felt the author was jeolous or not. that really affected the answer.</p>
<p>mehhh i still think it's curiosity.</p>
<p>yeah i put curiosity too. from the text i just felt like this is a little kid who wants to go around the world and see different things. so gyros -8,-9ish for cr this time and around -5ish for math?</p>