<p>In the talent/practice passage, are you sure it is “to examine a psychological experiment”? I remember considering that answer but picking another one because I felt that the passage wasn’t focused on a single experiment.</p>
<p>“to demonstrate an incomplete explanation”</p>
<p>^ Yes.</p>
<p>@KyaSenStar: it was to examine a psychological concept/area of study, so yes.</p>
<p>Wasn’t it “describe a debate then offer a compromise” instead “…referencing related examples”</p>
<p>
what passage was that for ??</p>
<p>^ it was the third to last question on the talent passage</p>
<p>hmm what was the question?</p>
<p>i remember that answer to be correct as well</p>
<p>anyone want to answer my question about the structure of the talent passage?</p>
<p>Wait, was one of the answer choices “The author acknowledges that the argument is not always true” or something along those lines…</p>
<p>@jolly - it was something like “what is the purpose of lines ___ to ___” It was referencing how people who train/study hard still have trouble achieving their goals</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ohh darn, i think i put that the author was acknowledging … something… does it sound familiar?</p>
<p>the answer to that was something like “regardless of talent, people need to train a lot”</p>
<p>for “fun comes at the expense of real insight of animals,”
its actually “generally innocuous.”</p>
<p>The narrator of passage 1 directly stated that it is a harmless form of entertainment - ITS JUST THAT people are eluded ONLY IF they came to gain an insightful knowledge of the creatures.
Its not at the expense of the insight that the fun comes from because according to the passage, one can know he or she can’t get an insightful knowledge like the “savvy zoo-goers” in the first place but just come to have fun.
Author of passage 1 would therefore agree that a zoo is a typically innocuous (harmless) form of culture and diversity.
Anyone agree/disagree?</p>
<p>I had an experimental CR, so I’m not sure whether this was in the actual section… but does anyone remember a question that was like:</p>
<p>Authors should be more ________ and use a variety of sources, and not be quick to ______?</p>
<p>I don’t remember what I put down, but I know that something…drudgery was one of the answer choices.</p>
<p>Also, does anyone remember the astronaut one? Something like “Having been using the gloves, when he took them off the astronaut’s ________ was compromised, but there was no _______ effects.”</p>
<p>I think I put down adroitness and residual… but again, I’m not sure.</p>
<p>wrong. the author of passage one expresses strong disaproval of spectators (not just those who come to gain insight).</p>
<p>^ think that’s experimental</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was experimental i think.</p>
<p>If he were to show strong disapproval of the spectators only, don’t you think it weird that he’d mention that the institution itself is basically harmless to culture and diversion?</p>
<p>And even if my position is wrong,
why would fun come at the expense of real insight?
The author clearly mentions that fun can come with or without true insight while objecting to those who visit the zoo to attempt to gain an insight.
He never said anything about people enjoying the zoo because they are all ignorant.
He only suggested that the zoo is harmless form of culture and diversion.
It only becomes detrimental to those who seek the wrong meaning…</p>
<p>Anyone remember what they put for the “10,000 hours question”?
Also, what did the girl think of the “old ways”?</p>
<p>the 10,000 hour question was "world-mastery requires 10,000 hours of practice regardless of the innate abilities that one might possess.’
It’s not “If you practice for 10,000 hours, then you gain a world-mastery” because the author mentions that some people take longer, and some take shorter - suggesting 10,000 is the minimum.
Not all people will gain mastery at exactly 10,000 hours</p>
<p>for the “10,000 hrs question” i think i put
‘even if one has a talent, one needs to practice for years to become expert’</p>