<p>I’m 80% sure it said that the experiments were inconclusive
maybe im getting two different questions confused</p>
<p>@Ethereality3,</p>
<p>I put referencing specific studies as well.</p>
<p>@notreal</p>
<p>There was another question I believe, in which the answer was “inconclusive”</p>
<p>is that the one of the last questions for that passage?
I think I put that even an innate learner needed hours of practice, not the one where you must practice 10,000 hours to be world-class</p>
<p>o wait i remember the question you’re talking about: yea its referencing experiments</p>
<p>compromise is an assumption</p>
<p>@notreal,</p>
<p>I put the same.</p>
<p>I agree with notreal and ethereality3.</p>
<p>So was the answer referencing specific studies? Now I remember getting confused with that one.</p>
<p>yea its the answer</p>
<p>Wait, was it referring to the author of the passage or the author of the books?
lol, I can’t remember.</p>
<p>My corrections: SC about ambition, ???</p>
<p>Total: 54/67</p>
<p>Sentence Completion - 15/19
Diverse
Devised
Ignominy
Acolyte
Ambition, ??? (one choice was miscalculations, incredulous)
Ubiquitous
Apoplectic
Charismatic
Provisional
Matured, Fulfilling
Severe, Upbraid
Underdog
Pioneer, Vanguard
Complicity, Exonerated of
Fight, Rampant</p>
<p>– Short Passage –</p>
<p>Rachel Carson/environmentalism
Marking a watershed moment in public
Respectful</p>
<p>Reading Promotes Learning
Make a claim
Debatable</p>
<p>Independent Films (Paired Passage)
familiar and overly alarmed
monetary concerns
passage 2 is more optimistic</p>
<p>– Long Passage –</p>
<p>Talent/Practice
to examine a psychological experiment
“account” = explained
muddling of cause and effect
walking, talking, potty training: people develop at different times
basketball players, other professions: broad application of a principle
Harvard researchers chose that specific group because “they had a specific talent”
reference specific studies
Statement about ppl who practice but fail: “to demonstrate an incomplete explanation”
10,000 Hours question (second to last): “even if one has a talent, one needs to practice for years to become an expert”</p>
<p>Boy and Author
Argentinian author and author reading stories aloud
Recount unusual experience –> new understanding
happy in his subordinate role
author’s impression with reality
apprehending –> perceiving
author’s lack of control
valuable for readers make connections w/ past readings</p>
<p>Girl in Austria
father wanted her to go on the trip “to learn about her non-English relatives”.
“freedom” means “releasing emotional burdens”
appalled = different viewpoints have equal values
likes her grandfather because “he talked about the present”
felt “disdain” for parent’s nostalgia about tearfully watering plants
“loved father like she loved a horse” = elaborate on previous sentence
painful to stay because of “isolation”</p>
<p>Zoos (Paired Passage)
products of human culture
condition: state of being
spectatorship: strong disapproval
savvy about nature of zoos
curiosities on display for audience
unconcerned with debates about zoo
fun comes at the expense of real insight of animals
do not offer authentic experience of wild animals
passage 1 makes argument that passage 2 finds unpersuasive</p>
<p>For the Argentinian passage, why does “author’s impression with reality mean?” Can someone provide some details on that question?</p>
<p>It was the one about notebook and carefully annotated edition. I said it was the uniqueness of his situation as he isnt physically a notebook.</p>
<p>^Can someone explain the isolation question?</p>
<p>I’m still convinced that it’s “describes a debate and offers a compromise”.
In the first sentence, he says there is a debate about the scientific defensibility of talent.
In the last paragraph, he certainly offers a compromise in that talent needs practice and practice needs talent.</p>
<p>Can someone give the exact answer for the reference specific studies answer?</p>
<p>does anybody remember the question/other options for:</p>
<p>-spectatorship: strong disapproval
and
-curiosities on display for audience</p>
<p>edit: @simo - it was “presents an issue and then cites relevant studies” or something like that</p>
<p>Im pretty sure its specific studies. That is the main point of the thing. He starts off with the first study, then branches out.</p>
<p>So what am I looking at with -2 wrong, 0 omit? Could that be 800 considering the difficulty (at least to me) of this CR?</p>
<p>aha! yes ugabooga. There’s another answer to add to the consolidated.
And Ethereal in case you missed it, I mentioned it a few times, that Kate regarded the “old ways” as snobbishly excessive. A few people confirmed it, but it’s still open to question. You can add it to consolidated if you would like</p>
<p>So it looks like 3 wrong :(. There goes the 800.</p>
<p>^I agree w/ KyaSenStar
Definitely snobbishly excessive.</p>