<p>I don’t think so pinkumbrella10. “Passage 1 is positive and 2 is negative”. It’s never like this. I’m guessing passage 2 impersonally presented a negative point of view then disagreed with it towards the end. They do that a lot.</p>
<p>^Passage 1 had a positive point of view about the phenomenon and Passage 2 had a negative point of view about the phenomenon. </p>
<p>Each journalists were pretty dogmatic in their beliefs. (Never flip-flopped)</p>
<p>^The choice was “Passage 2 presents a negative view of a development that Passage 1 treats positively” (or at least, something like that).</p>
<p>Umm, for the arcane SC, I put enigmatic.</p>
<p>For the toxic spill one, I put the disputable choice. My reasoning: the evidence is so disputable that both sides can use it to argue their point.</p>
<p>For New/Big Media, I said that the authors treated it objectionably. Passage 1 certainly didn’t like Big Media and Passage 2 certainly hated New Media. Passage 2 definitely didn’t think New Media was objective because it didn’t follow any rules.</p>
<p>what was the significance of the larry levine quote in the oprah book club passage?</p>
<p>Presents. Oh I see.</p>
<p>How can they hate something and yet treat it objectively? Isn’t it like the definition of subjective, unless the New Media and Old Media or whatever those are intentionally present themselves to be bad?</p>
<p>^I also put enigmatic and had the same reasoning for putting disputable.</p>
<p>I think I may have put entrenched because both authors thought New Media and Big Media wasn’t going anywhere. Oh well. :(</p>
<p>“Seva q1 physical past”
isn’t that st like feeling? because the tense was in present tense and the sentence talked about the weather and environment being cold… and stuff… I didn’t really see past in there… though I initially chose physical</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To back up the initial assertion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree; some posters in earlier posts said that objectively was the right answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think entrenched means that it’s like the tested and true practice of the day. New Media is only beginning to emerge. Sorry.</p>
<p>“Some posters in earlier posts said that objectively was the right answer.”</p>
<p>…Including you. Check again.</p>
<p>the word was “objectionable,” not “objectively.” that would make it the correct answer choice.</p>
<p>He changed it I swear!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite. I chose objectionably. I saw others saying it was objectively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but I did spend most of that portion of my post saying why objectively was wrong.</p>
<p>So far:
so New and Big Media was like objectionable
electric power plant for not object to
parity somewhere
Seva q1 physical past (it was talking about her thinking of her past)
seva–conspicuous because it said it filled up half the page in the magazine.
Regarding the common problems: list of examples
Cold–impersonal</p>
<p>Reason for real phenomenon, what was the other choice to this?
difference between the two journalism passages- passage 1 was positive while passage 2 was negative ( the answer was more like passage two takes a new perspective)</p>
<p>What was similar between the two journalism passages regarding public involvement?–I put that public involvement was becoming commonplace
covered for journalism - write about
journalism author 2 use diff view point
Protest on campus “too convient” = only for college admin CHECK THIS
Curious archecture = snobbish</p>
<p>sent comp:
foster
disputable or manifest (not sure)
fluctuations
prolific
ubiqutious
popular president
prodigious sources
prominent…something</p>
<p>add guys and check please</p>
<p>COMPILATION:</p>
<p>Lets try to make a focused COMPILATION. That will help everyone remember things. Please add to this list:</p>
<p>SC
- Popular - president
- Prolific - writer
- Prominent
- Ingenious - clever and almost
- Fluctuation
- Ubiquitous
- Eclipsed
- Identify … Vague
- Manifest or Disputable ???
- Foster
- Pigment - sea dragon??
- Rancorous - I put this for something. Anyone remember??</p>
<p>Modern Architecture:
- Snobbish - because built to impress
- Implicit</p>
<p>Journalist - big media and new media
- Objective
- Passage 1 was positive and Passage 2 was negative
- Public involvement was becoming commonplace
- Parity</p>
<p>Seva - the Indian-American Columnist
- Conspicuous
- Cold = impersonal
- Provides examples
- Physical past</p>
<p>College Football
- Take a bold stance on a controversial issue</p>
<p>Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ???</p>
<p>the astronomy one is about the discovery of human’s ignorance… does anyone have that passage?</p>
<p>SC
- Popular - president
- Prolific - writer
- Prominent
- Ingenious - clever and almost
- Fluctuation
- Ubiquitous
- Eclipsed
- Identify … Vague This is the same as #9; it should be merged
- Manifest or Disputable I picked disputable
- Foster
- Pigment - sea dragon??
- Rancorous - I put this for something. Anyone remember?? The thing about a person’s tone
- Enigmatic This is for the Konigsburg novel</p>
<p>Journalist - big media and new media
- Objective or Objectionable (my reasoning for objectionable:<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065996839-post123.html[/url])%5B/b%5D”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065996839-post123.html)</a>
- Passage 1 was positive and Passage 2 was negative
- Public involvement was becoming commonplace
- Parity</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did.</p>
<p>prominent??? What? pigment? foster? eclipsed? what questions were these
rancorous is correct. Also, the toxic spill one was disputable (it was talking about using the facts as evidence or something in a court)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only one I recognize is foster (for the SC about Braque fostering Cubism along with Picasso).</p>
<p>Yes, definitely RANCOROUS and ENIGMATIC! Does anyone remember SCs with Nostalgic and Satire. I remember a CR question with Empirical. </p>
<p>Yes, I agree - DISPUTABLE</p>
<p>i got “satire” (for a topsy turvey world), the leader was “nostaligic” for past and “ambitious for future” and, now that i think about it, did get foster as well</p>