<p>bewilder: to confuse or befuddle
the answer was the skepticism to satisfaction one, because the passage talked about how successful the ask seva column became, implying that the editor would be satisfied with the success, despite being skeptical at first.</p>
<p>Why were industry people drawn to modern architecture?</p>
<p>Because of its individual expression?</p>
<p>^Because they wanted to appear cultured.</p>
<p>I think the answer was: They wanted to appear cultivated.</p>
<p>^LOL, cultivated.</p>
<p>Yes. Cultivated. It can also mean: educated; refined; cultured.</p>
<p>^The primary definition made me laugh when I thought about it.</p>
<p>No, that was the answer to the question about why they wanted to buy British television shows. It was a different question.</p>
<p>They were drawn to modern architecture because it was established as the “in” form of architecture. That’s the gist of the answer.</p>
<p>Can someone check the last one on the journalism passage? I put it’s losing it’s identity or something similar to that</p>
<p>^What’s the question?</p>
<p>I’m not exactly sure. It was something about what the author’s opinion is on the future of architecture (I’m pretty sure this was in the architecture passage now, not journalism, my bad). I said it’s losing it’s identity and whatever the rest of that choice was</p>
<p>I said that it was losing public favor, though I think the debasing choice is more correct. So I’m at -2 now (I think). God forbid I miss another one; that’d drop me to -4.</p>
<p>So was it ever decided what the answer was for the question on why modernism was failing? because it lost favor or because it lost its identity?</p>
<p>@youwrotethis</p>
<p>Yeah, I put the losing its identity answer because it said that modernism changed to become the state it is today.</p>
<p>Also, for the journalism question about the history of development of stories or something I believe it was to “show the consequences of a trend” not “put in a broader context”</p>
<p>oh oops wrong thread i guess?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said that it put it into a broader context. This is because the author starts by saying how journalism is changing from centralized to grassroots. Then he/she talks about how humans have told stories throughout their existence. The author starts small (change in media) then puts the change into broader context (human history). Up to there, there’s no discussion about consequences of this trend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No consensus yet.</p>
<p>I concur on the broader context</p>
<p>@314159265
Well the question (from my memory) asked for that specific line with human history. Also, it said the development of technology or something has always led to an increase in storytelling. That seems like a trend to me. By the way, the change described before doesnt match up to a broader change. I couldnt find the “change” in human history.</p>
<p>The question was asking for what “change” referred to or what it’s purpose is. The passage went like this (underlining is added by moi):</p>
<p>Media is going from centralized media to grassroots media. This is a story of change. From the beginning of time, humans have told stories.</p>