<p>hmm I think that was asking about what the author of the second passage on literature suggested authors should not be concerned with? maybe…</p>
<p>cjester, your interpretation makes no sense. 
even in the version of the sentence that you said, austere/unadorned works better lol. But I guess we’ll just see. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the beginning of the passage, remember that the father explicitly stated that he did not intend to make any overnight stops (that WAS the whole point of picking up random people, anyway), so obviously he wouldn’t be thinking of “inexpensive motels” as a reason for choosing to take the back roads. The motels were completely out of his mind at first.</p>
<p>Those reasons don’t necessarily ALL have to do directly with money. That’s more of an “in the context of the passage, which would fit best” kind of question. In the context of the passage, the father was not even considering motels as an option at first.</p>
<p>^@canbambiswim, yes I did- thats why my second paragraph was preceded by “the <em>gist</em> of the sentence is”</p>
<p>Okay even so, I still don’t understand your argument.
You said earlier that you interpreted it as saying that it was ironic in the fact that the pigmented statues were plainer than the white ones?
I don’t think that was what the sentence was intended to mean.</p>
<p>vlectric,</p>
<p>Yes, but the action described in the phrase that started with “by” was an action that only the agency could do; therefore, “it” (agency) had to be the subject of the sentence.</p>
<p>hmm I am 99% certain the original wording had the word “yet.” Whenever you use ‘yet’ it is to show an ironic contradiction: to use an example provided by silverturtle, “I am hungry, yet I do not eat.”
It is ironic that you are hungry but do not eat. If you interpret the greek sentence like this, it makes sense that you would say “The common white statues are considered plain, YET the new ones- even with their pigments- do not seem as ornate [as the old ones].”</p>
<p>It is illogical to phrase a sentence to say (using the word simple in place of both austere and unadorned, again credit to silverturtle for stating all three are synonyms) “The common white statues are considered simple, YET the new ones- even with color- do not seem as simple [as the old ones].” You would not use the word ‘yet’.</p>
<p>However, I do not expect anyone to buy my argument at this point, and again I will say that I could very well be wrong. I’ll just have to wait and hope the nuances of such a sentence don’t come back to bite me :p</p>
<p>wait
go to the writing section
i misposted here</p>
<p>For example,</p>
<p>“The store reported that by selling product x, money was made.”
vs.
“The store reported that by selling product x, it (the store) made money.”</p>
<p>Now, flip the statements around.</p>
<p>“Money was made by selling product x”
vs.
“The store made money by selling product x”</p>
<p>In the 2nd sentence, it is clear that “the store” is the thing “selling product x.” That is why E was the answer. (or at least that is my opinion)</p>
<p>Father refusal to pick up soldier - Disloyal
What are the other choices?</p>
<p>irrational was one other</p>
<p>Two authors agree that humor is not acceptable in all situations ??
The two authors only talk about business situations not “ALL” situations, right?</p>
<p>irrational is not correct? Why? Was the questions phrased something like “What does the son feel blablabla…” not his dad?</p>
<p>happysunshine-- What the sentence means is that humor is only appropriate in SOME situations, not ALL situations.</p>
<p>disloyal is a better choice than irrational because the son talks about how he was the defender of our nation and this other word that directly points to disloyal but i forgot what it was.</p>
<p>canbambiswim,</p>
<p>I think you’re referring to “seditious” and “politically offended” or something like that.</p>
<p>How could I make such a stupid mistake? Sign…</p>
<p>Yeah, “seditious” was it.</p>
<p>I’m not too sure disloyal is the correct answer for the father one.</p>
<p>My case for irrational is that the son said that the father was on the lookout for hitchhikers because he wanted to split up the driving duties, however, everytime the father passed on the hitchhikers because he wanted to spend time with just him and his son.</p>
<p>I can’t remember the following two questions:
Father’s reasons are incomplete
Father isn’t fair - Right
Can someone repeat them for me? </p>
<p>Also, Astronomers baffled b/c they are unable to predict observed celestial phenomena
Why is it not the answer about linking their theories and the facts together (I can’t really remember the wording)</p>
<p>@Ap: I picked irrational as well; same reasoning</p>
<p>i put “deferential” i think for one of the questions. i might have changed it i dont remmeber. I had an extra cr sectyion but i dont remember if this was legit or not. what do u guys think any of u remember this?</p>