<p>I said:</p>
<p>regrettably underhanded
complete agreement</p>
<p>Can someone explain their reasoning for "great conviction"?</p>
<p>there are NO FAULTS so that is great conviction</p>
<p>how and when do we get to know which section was experimental??</p>
<p>what was the simplistic one?</p>
<p>The simplistic one went something like </p>
<p>...the lawyer's arguments were _________, unsophisticated and...</p>
<p>It was question number six.</p>
<p>no, simplisitic went something like</p>
<p>'the critics dimissed the artist's creativity as ......., underdeveloped and lacking in sophistication'</p>
<p>****..i didn't put that..actually i'm not sure..I was thinking about it, but don't remember which answer I chose. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr</p>
<p>Think about it, Cecil is about to marry Lucy. Would he say that "she has no faults" with "cautious optimism," as if he has doubts? No. He is certain of Lucy's flawnessness, which is why he is so engaged in the clergyman's discussion of heroics and good vs. bad.</p>
<p>the answer is most definately "with great conviction."</p>
<p>was harbinger in one of the SC questions? and also dictum or prerogative</p>
<p>Probably an experimental section.</p>
<p>I think that must have been an experimental Sepolka because I do not recall having that.</p>
<p>Wvernrider, I think for that question the two choices were great conviction or studied neutrality. The passage said he said it with grave sincerity. The question becomes what does grave sincerity mean - I thought it fit more with studied neutrality. To me in the passage he seemed to be listening carefully and paying a lot of attention to what the clergymen was saying and not talking with complete conviction anywhere in the passage. My only problem with neutrality is that it isn't a very neutral phrase - but perhaps studied neutrality works - we need some verification.</p>
<p>Can someone tell me the question for circumscribed, the whole regrettably underhanded thing - what were the other choices for that because I think I put something else, and also wasn't there a question with a phrase in italics in a passage and it asked why the author put it in italics and i wrote something about underhanded but I'm not sure if thats right</p>
<p>honorable was the answer to one of the sentence completions also if that has not been mentioned</p>
<p>Iwanttogotocollege,</p>
<p>I picked with great conviction because at the beginning he was certain that Lucy was perfect, but as the other guy talk and talk and hint in on a possible flaw in Lucy Cecil seemed really anxious to find out more.</p>
<p>hmm
i was going to put great conviction because i used the exact same reasoning as you
the problem is that right after that quotation, the author wrote, "said 'the guy' with GRAVE SINCERITY. so im pretty sure its not with "great conviction"</p>
<p>Grave sincerity is parallel to Great conviction. If you are sincere about something you genuinely believe in it. You have conviction. The Grave part just adds more sincerity, in that he is serious about it. Studied neutrality doesn't really work here.</p>
<p>I also put complete agreement for the MLK passage</p>
<p>I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion of the string theory passage. I guess everybody agrees with me that that was the easiest one of all?</p>
<p>what about the I think two questions that asked about the purpose of the first MLK passage? Something to that effect</p>
<p>String theory was pretty easy for all science-oriented people . . . I probably could have done most of the questions without reading the passage.</p>
<p>Did anybody else put "cynical..." for the MLK question about the 2nd author's way of viewing the quote? </p>
<p>Yea, Hamster, the string theory was the only passage that made complete sense. Well, that and the origins of life in america passages, but those were probably experimental.</p>