<p>prism - benign means “non-threatening” xD</p>
<p>some question had the word fastidious in it… anyone remember and maybe the word sporadic and decorum/decorous</p>
<p>and was an answer naivete</p>
<p>what is state form…what is state form…what is state form…what is state form…what is state form…what is state form…</p>
<p>kaiyan: it was a question about the solid state</p>
<p>state of the rock
it was refering to the form as in liquid,solid,gas</p>
<p>yeah an answer was naivete.
i don’t remember that other question.</p>
<p>alstair interconnected genes
dramatic then anticlimax
enigmatic
biased
mechanical = physical
distressed/opposed
convivial
expectation and reality
tropical ocean
direct quotes
more historical
expression/intensity of need
perturbed
attitude toward students
impassioned
eating nutrients
dailiness everyday life
solid “state” = form
edison practical intelligence
prestigious endorsement
whale astonishingly friendly and fluid
democratic
obsolescence (still in debate w/ attracting visitors choice and domineering)
poke fun (still in debate w/ contradictory)
protean (not virulent)
empathy
negligent, essential
engagement = involvement
equanimity (not vehemence/ire)
naivete</p>
<p>scientifically inclined (still in debate w/ philosophical) - husband definitely showed and explained to wife the gene map. philosophically inclined has to be inferred by the reader and the only opposing argument is that he believes in fate. The colors indicating same lineage on the gene map does not indicate that he is more philosophical. That is what a gene map tells you; it traces the lineage, which all lead back to Africa (this is my prior knowledge), so by explaining that the colors indicate the same lineage and same people, the husband isn’t being more philosophical. He is just speaking about conclusions that can be drawn from the gene map. Also, philosophy is the study of human existence, purpose, truths and other abstract stuff, not fate, mythology, or divine stuff. choose the best answer: scientifically inclined because there is hard evidence.</p>
<p>also negligent,esential</p>
<p>i put destroying and something else</p>
<p>:9</p>
<p>Yeah can anyone confirm the answer naivete?</p>
<p>so far -4 on this, :, I think I got a few more wrong, I’m hoping for 700+</p>
<p>i remember destroying, but what was negligent and essential… a sentence please or something to trigger my memory</p>
<p>anyone remember any of the following words… might not be answers
fastidious
sporadic
decorum/decorous</p>
<p>alstair interconnected genes
dramatic then anticlimax
enigmatic
biased
mechanical = physical
distressed/opposed
convivial
expectation and reality
tropical ocean
direct quotes
more historical
expression/intensity of need
perturbed
attitude toward students
impassioned
eating nutrients
dailiness everyday life
solid “state” = form
edison practical intelligence
prestigious endorsement
whale astonishingly friendly and fluid
democratic
obsolescence (still in debate w/ attracting visitors choice and domineering)
poke fun (still in debate w/ contradictory)
protean (not virulent)
empathy
negligent, essential
engagement = involvement
equanimity (not vehemence/ire)
naivete
destorying/instill</p>
<p>tbonus: don’t recognize any of those words as answers, might have seen sporadic</p>
<p>its ire for the second one because they said " we controlled ______"
they controlled their anger
so it had to be ire</p>
<p>I remember fastidious and sporadic but I don’t remember picking anyone of them as answers</p>
<p>can someone explain any of these:
eating nutrients
edison practical intelligence
prestigious endorsement</p>
<p>I put aroused curiosity, but we remained indifferent >_></p>
<p>ruthless: remained calm was the clue word in that sentence, meaning equanimity. I don’t think it said we controlled…</p>
<p>so far 32 right and 3 definite wrong and 2 possible wrong… so ill probably end up with 650ish</p>
<p>The author was talking about colleges as utilitarian (practical) and mentioned edision as examples of practical intelligence. The companies wanted colleges to do research on their drugs b/c they wanted credible data on it, or prestigious endorsement.</p>