<p>“But my gas engine experiments were no more popular with the president of the company than my first mechanical leanings were with my father. It was not that my employer objected to experiments – only two experiments with a gas engine. I can still hear him say:’ electricity, yes, that’s the coming thing. But gas – no. “ he had ample grounds for his skepticism – to use the modest terms.” </p>
<p>so, it is the president…can others please confirm my answers above? thanks!</p>
<p>I put unsafe; it could be inferred that they were seen as somethng new, therefore unsafe ( especially b/c no one bought / taking in mind the height) . It was seen as a novelty, but if seen also as a luxury, people would buy it?</p>
<p>“There was no demand from automobiles – there never is for a new article. They were accepted in much the same fashion as was more recently the airplane. At first the horseless carriage was considered merely a freak notion and then he wants people explained with particularity why it could never be more than a toy. No man of money even thought of it as a commercial possibility. I cannot imagine why each new means of transportation meet with such opposition. There are even those today and shake their heads and talk about the luxury of the automobile and only grudgingly admit that perhaps the motor truck is of some use. But in the beginning there was hardly anyone who sensed that the automobile could be a large factor in industry. The most optimistic hoped only for the development akin to that of the bicycle…”</p>
<p>I don’t see anywhere there where you can make the inference that it was UNSAFE>…the point is that it was new, and novel, and considered a luxury…</p>
<ol>
<li>Yes</li>
<li>Yes</li>
<li>Yes. Something about planning to mass-produce them later</li>
<li>Yes</li>
<li>Yes</li>
<li>I don’t remember the answer choices. </li>
<li>Novelty</li>
</ol>
<p>Novelty - the quality of being new, original, or unusual; a small and inexpensive toy or ornament.</p>
<ol>
<li>I’m not sure what I put since I don’t remember the other answer chioces, but I think you’re right.</li>
<li>Yes.</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>Why wasn’t it straightforward and self-critical?</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>I put to show how cars weren’t viewed as toys anymore?</li>
</ol>
<p>It was straightforward (same as being matter-of-fact), but he was not criticizing himself enough for us to label him as self-critical. Instead he was fairly praising of himself and optimistic, showing that he was self-confident as opposed to self-critical. He never really experienced failure and only kept building his company.</p>
<p>For the police question…the answer was because he chained his car to the pole…anyone concur?</p>
<p>Pretty sure the police question had to do with speed, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I put this too; at first i was going to put the pole one, but the speed limit seemed more logical for the question</p>
<p>I think I did very bad. What would a -9 be?</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it was the pole one… What was the first one to the twins passage?</p>
<p>The one about same gift</p>
<p>I also said chained to the pole.</p>
<p>Weren’t 3 and 6 the same questions?..and I put speed limit, if you referred back to the passage the chain to the pole part caused traffic problems, but the police didn’t like it because of it’s speed. </p>
<p>Google doc: <a href=“ACT October 2013 - Google Docs”>ACT October 2013 - Google Docs;
<p>I put speed as well. The gift answer was something about the city’s summer</p>
<p>Were the brother doing business in the town? And im pretty sure it was the pole…</p>
<p>What do you mean by “the players were the cars” (in the google doc)</p>
<p>Did they look better when they were under water???</p>
<p>Yes, it was directly stated in the passage.</p>
<p>In the google docs it said that it looked less impressive under water</p>