<p>i don’t think the father’s explanation was “incomplete”. I think it was amusing because his fathers explanation was so exaggerated and sentimental even though the more logical reasons were simple things about money</p>
<p>oh yea
what was the question in which the answer was Thought process distinctive to researchers</p>
<p>i put hostility and not skepticism because the author was really against humor in the workplace. According to dictionary.com hostility is defined as:</p>
<ol>
<li>a hostile state, condition, or attitude; enmity; antagonism; unfriendliness. </li>
<li>a hostile act. </li>
<li>opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc. </li>
</ol>
<p>any ideas?</p>
<p>the thought process one was the primary purpose one I think.</p>
<p>I don’t think they were hostile, because it’s a bit strong and they seemed more like they didn’t believe it would work than openly attacking it.</p>
<p>it was skepticism because the author of passage 2 never explicitly stated that he was against it, he just questioned how americans took it for granted that it was. and it was skepticism also beacause he asked “so how are these comic workers important? Joe Shmo believes that something team building.”</p>
<p>does anybody remember other choices for the primary purpose one?</p>
<p>something about observing natural everyday phenomena</p>
<p>I picked “hostility” over “skepticism” because</p>
<hr>
<p>Definitions from Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:</p>
<p>Hostility: (2) (to/towards sth) strong and angry opposition towards an idea, a plan or a situation</p>
<h2>Scepticism: an attitude of doubting that claims or statements are true or that sth will happen/not easily convinced, having doubts or reservations</h2>
<p>And here’s the article (The original article found here: [The</a> funniness epidemic. - By Peter Hyman - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2149976/]The”>The funniness epidemic.))</p>
<p>“Are we now compelled, as a culture, to be comical, no matter the setting or the endeavor? And if so, what on earth gave rise to this troubling idea?
One possible culprit may be corporate America itself, where being funny is now seen as a valuable asset. Fortune 500 companies dole out big fees to comedy consultants who offer humor seminars and improv workshops—all in the name of improved productivity. But how exactly are funnier employees better for business? According to Tim Washer, a former improv performer who is now a communications executive at IBM, funniness helps foster team-building and, of course, learning how to “think outside the box.””</p>
<p>Note the use of words (diction): “this troubling idea,” “culprit,” “But how exactly are funnier…business?”</p>
<p>-> I do acknowledge the harshness of the word “hostility,” especially when juxtaposed with words such as “skepticism.” But let’s think about it based on the passage. Is the author “strongly opposed” to the idea or “doubting the veracity” of the idea?</p>
<p>Who would call an idea “troubling,” “a culprit,” and keep on questioning: “But how exactly… business?” Would an opinionated person who doesn’t like the idea and is opposed to the idea? Or would a person who is “not sure” and has “reservations”</p>
<p>If I was skeptical, I wouldn’t call an idea “troubling” and “a culprit.” Only would a person call something troubling(causing distress/agitating) and a culprit(the cause of a problem or defect/a person responsible for a crime) when he/she is clearly against the issue. So evidently, the author is opinionated and biased towards being “hostile” (antagonistic) rather than being “sceptical” (not sure).</p>
<p>And this is the last paragraph of the actual article, although not present on the test:</p>
<p>“The only solution is for some of us to voluntarily retire from the humor game. Let me be the first to forge a new reality by pledging never to try to be funny again. I can only hope that the executives at IBM read this and follow suit, if they’re not already busy filming a sitcom pilot for Fox on some back lot in Studio City.”</p>
<h2>Does it sound like he is clearly against the idea? or does it sound like he is still not certain?</h2>
<p>So I think the answer was “hostility.” Feel free to add to this.</p>
<p>Are you sure it was the first author and not the second?</p>
<p>And any opinions about the curve?</p>
<p>omggg</p>
<p>how much wrong is a 580 becuz i got that last time</p>
<p>and a 600 the time before</p>
<p>how much do i need for 610 or 620 cr</p>
<p>plz cr is so hard omg i fail cr bad</p>
<p>how much wrong for 610-650 plzzzzzzzzzzzz</p>
<p>narendly, </p>
<p>The author’s tone is not one of “aggression” or “anger.” If it were, the author would not pose his problems with the use of comedy in rhetorically inquisitive form, nor would he quote without qualification one who offers a very reasonable reason for the use of workplace comedy.</p>
<p>plz how much for 610+ on cr i beg u</p>
<p>Delineating the consequences for particular actions
what was that question</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do lines 3-7 (I think) of comedy passage one do?</p>
<p>It’s not hostility because right in the beginning the author is <em>questioning</em> if and why humor is taking over the workplace. He’s not outright against it. So skepticism should be the right answer.</p>
<p>So could anyone jog my memory on the “appreciation” question? I don’t remember that one at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It asked about the author’s characterization of scientists who have a sincere enthusiasm for their respective subjects.</p>
<p>Can we open up a discussion about the greek buildings sentence completion problem</p>
<p>I remember it clearly in this structure:</p>
<p>“the greek buildings were looked upon as _<strong><em>; yet the newly found artifacts were viewed upon as NOT </em></strong>”</p>
<p>in this case, plain/ornate would be correct, not “austere/unadorned”</p>
<p>Light Airen, read carefully what you wrote…plain/ornate would not work…because that is essentially saying that the greek buildings and the newly found artifacts were both plain…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does not make sense.</p>