<p>Like I said, not a specific contribution. It was inferred. And please no need to be touchy. I’m not accusing you, I’m explaining MY opinion. Now unless someone can find the exact passage this is not going to be cleared up so there’s no point further discussing it.</p>
<p>Edit: Damn looks like I’m outnumbered :(</p>
<p>YO for one of the questinos was it glared or shone ??? or other lol</p>
<p>That is an unofficial rule.
The true grammatical “rules” for who and whom would say that you would need to use them.</p>
<p>The first one had to do something about lowering prices or something with economics because it said something about the “working class” as the object which led me to whom.</p>
<p>Yeah I am completely blanking on the second sentence too.
I don’t even remember the passage.</p>
<p>@Wings</p>
<p>The first one was the long sentence with commas and such.</p>
<p>Korea, the peeps here reached a consensus that it was glared.
Don’t worry about it Simo, it looks like you were right on whiff/aroma (it was aroma, it seems).</p>
<p>Was the answer posted for glitter, shone, shined, or sparkled?</p>
<p>something like that</p>
<p>@Sweet, I agree with you. I’m not adamant about my answer, haha!</p>
<p>This settles the aroma/whiff debate once and for all:</p>
<p>GOOGLE</p>
<p>50,500 results for “overwhelming aroma”
860 results for “overwhelming whiff”</p>
<p>Whiff is wrong. Period.</p>
<p>If something shines on something else you use shined. </p>
<p>I think.</p>
<p>After googling the phrase “aroma of garbage” and getting results, I’m going to have to agree that the answer was whiff; however, I think that it is an absolutely terrible question.</p>
<p>Glared was the answer.</p>
<p>Not that it matters, but I did answer with “whiff.”</p>
<p>Just to clarify, the answer to one of the questions about Monopoly was “in celebration of,” or something to that effect?</p>
<p>^Yes</p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>do we have a consensus on “in celebration of,” or experience or whatever in the monopoly one?</p>
<p>That’s what I put kellian.</p>
<p>For the second question ( I think) was the wrong answer turned “into” the bike path or over? And from the same passage what make the scene most like twilight-- would it be no change: the headlights …blahblahblah? </p>
<p>Also did anyone get four “no changes” in a row? Or an abnormally large string of them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m positive that “into” was suitable for that sentence. Thus, you should have marked “over” on your answer document.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The correct answer was no change. The question asked for you to state what would show that it is dark out, and the no change response was the only one that did this. It said that bikes had their lights turned on (or something like that), while the other answers were random phrases that may have been more proper grammatically, but not in the sense of specifying that it is dusk out.</p>
<p>Was it an “international culture center” or “international cultural center”? I believe I picked “international culture center” because I didn’t see a “international cultural center”. Did anyone remember seeing “international cultural” as a choice?</p>
<p>Ok i agree with the second one, but how could he turn “into” the path? I’ve never heard of that. Although “over” sounded strange it’d be possible to bike over a path, but into it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That one was no change. It was given as international cultural center. The other options were like adverbial forms, like internationally culture center or international culturally center. There was no answer choice that had exactly “international culture center” - I looked for that in particular.</p>
<p>International culturally center I think was the closest to what you’re thinking ellegee. I chose the same as you.</p>
<p>I think it was international cultural center.</p>