<p>I didn’t put “argue against change” because no one ever wanted to try to change the world series
also I was just thinking that he was using the example to qualify his whole argument about how the electoral college makes sense if one understands the rules. I don’t know, it never sounded like he was fighting a change directly, he just thought that the people who wanted change needed further education on the matter.</p>
<p>was the undertake one really worded as “support that people undertake the task of gaining knowledge of the electoral college system”? I feel like I would have picked that one if I saw it. ugh.</p>
<p>And for the transition I put “But I” because it introduced an extrapolation from the previous anecdote. In the last paragraph it clearly said that hard work does not appear in the final product which was a transition from the previous paragraphs about why he worked so hard.</p>
<p>@young
I got that question wrong because I read it wrong, but if I read it right I would have chosen evenhanded. </p>
<p>Polemic: A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.</p>
<p>The author, even in the last paragraph, said that the opposers were right but needed to present their argument better with good alternatives to the current system.</p>
<p>That is pretty fair to both sides, evenhanded.</p>
<p>@cathbomb</p>
<p>A qualification is made for a specific statement, an essay is written to “qualify” a real topic.</p>
<p>And I think it was worded “people would support it if they understood the electoral system” or something like that.</p>
<p>@cathbomb</p>
<p>haha no, that was just what i got out of it</p>
<p>@cathbomb i agree on that problem where he advocated education.</p>
<p>I put evenhanded because the author used plenty of concessive clauses - lots of Althoughs and balancing the arguments, then suggested that with criticism comes a plan for reform. It seemed very balanced to me.</p>
<p>But then again, most of English analysis is super subjective.</p>
<p>Idk I honestly guessed on that. I had evenhanded at first but then I saw it said the last paragraph and when I compared it, it seemed more polemic. Idk. I hope we all get our scores man.</p>
<p>for the electoral college, i don’t think it was changes because the 2nd passage didnt even discuss preventing change. i dont know what i put but it def was not change.</p>
<p>Did anyone get that the critics should “analyze the faults in their alternatives more” or something like that. One of the other choices was “come up with a system where everyone is counted evenly”</p>
<p>@frost</p>
<p>The second paragraph talked about how the world series is fine the way it is without any change. He is trying to prove that change is not necessary.</p>
<p>And guys it was with respect to the last paragraph on both passages. So you can’t use info from other paragraphs to justify your point. Lol</p>
<p>…Wait so for the Chaplin one regarding the transition, can someone just confirm that the sentence was the one the started the last paragraph (with his teacher)? I’m not entirely sure what the sentence started with, but I am sure that it began the concluding paragraph.</p>
<p>there was a sentence completion like it was clear from the ___________ teacher that she would not tolerate any disobedience, what was that?</p>
<p>I don’t think the answer is qualification. I put something undertaking.</p>
<p>He saying that people accept the world cup, even though he/she didn’t score enough points something something. Presidential election is simply an electrion based on electoral college and not on popular votes, just as some competitions are not based on who score the most point. </p>
<p>He isn’t weakening his stance at all, so it can’t be qualification. He’s just bringing up examples that don’t follow the “most vote/score/whatever” rule.</p>
<p>So I chose something undertaking.</p>
<p>@drac: I put the latter. The topic in contention was the Gore/Bush election, which involved a recount of votes, so I thought that was the right answer.</p>
<p>I got analyze faults in alternatives more. Im pretty sure. Ah well. Time to go shower and hope for a 1000. Im aiming for 300s on errthang</p>
<p>And i got undertaking too.</p>
<p>ohhhh 
makes sense. and yeah i put analyze faults in alternatives!</p>
<p>@YoungDerivative</p>
<p>in the last paragraph the author basically said “although the reformists were right, they had to have an underlying plan to replace the electoral college if they wanted progress”</p>
<p>i really do not see how you can characterize that as polemic. bah whatever. screw sats.</p>
<p>Omg! There’s a hkim95 and hkim0713! I saw a post written by hkim95 and I was confused because I didn’t post that, then I realized it was a different person. 
</p>
<p>jimmypod, there was one other option about bringing reconciliation.</p>
<p>@DreamChaser: I put maladroit, but after I looked it up, it doesn’t really make sense. None of the answers really fit into that blank.</p>