<p>wait nvm its different</p>
<p>IF those choices were there. But they weren’t, so the answer to that question was that it was not SINISTER.</p>
<p>@yet another person</p>
<p>The question asked what was the purpose of the World Series analogy provided by author two.</p>
<p>@prophylaxis.</p>
<p>It was about how Scientists/some type of people describe animals…</p>
<p>Answer was derisive / characterization.</p>
<p>My personal opinions<- Fairly Confident in my Cr ability.
Sinister
Undertake
Evenhanded</p>
<p>what were the other choices for derisive / characterization ?</p>
<p>SINISTER = Giving the impression that something harmful or evil is happening or will happen. Wicked or criminal.</p>
<p>Claws give the impression that something is harmful. When would an author ever personify anything with claws unless it was to make the object seem imposing, dark, evil, wicked? Never. Sinister was not the answer.</p>
<p>@drac313 I’m so sorry to be like the hundredth person asking things like this, but why was the author even using that analogy? Like in what context?</p>
<p>@Nrsander</p>
<p>To make it seem fierce/strong/aggressive/powerful…AKA imposing</p>
<p>@ lilyy</p>
<p>He basically said that the team with the most runs in a season doesn’t always win, yet people still accept the team as the true winner. He continues to say that these are the rules and people understand them.</p>
<p>The question asked what was the point of this whole spiel about the World Series. </p>
<p>Is this to make a qualification or argue against a change (changing the electoral college that is).</p>
<p>@nrsander</p>
<p>The box is characterized as fierce/aggressive which does NOT mean evil or even implying evil.</p>
<p>drac if thats the case i think qualification is the better choice because saying that people should be more aware of the “rules of the electoral system” does not really argue against a change, right?</p>
<p>@drac313 thank you for elaborating, it had just slipped my mind! Now I remember this…personally I think it’s qualification, because even those advocates never ask for a change in the first place; they just criticize it and think that it’s undemocratic.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the question in the space/universe passage about skin? It was like</p>
<p>“The description about the skin (lines xx-yy) primarily serves as ____”
IIRC, I felt like none of the answer choices were really right.</p>
<p>Also, the author uses analogies throughout that passage, right? And what was the one in that same passage where an answer choice was “subjective”? I remember I put that and changed it to something else, but I don’t remember what to.</p>
<p>analogies yup…</p>
<p>Oh and when people say -3 points = 800, what does that mean? Like how many questions WRONG is that (if you didn’t omit any).</p>
<p>I thought it was argue against change. He compared the World Series to the election process, and since people understood why the World Series works the way it does, they’re fine with it. If they understood how the election process worked, they’d be fine with it too and no change would be necessary.</p>
<p>I don’t remember what I put for that World Series comparison question, but why would it be qualification? A qualification is something that makes another statement less absolute, so wouldn’t the author be weakening his argument, if that’s the right choice?</p>
<p>I see everyone’s points. I personally have said and continue to that it was argue against change. He points out the world series as an example to show how change doesn’t necessarily need to occur. Thereby he is arguing against a change. I didn’t see it as a qualification because you can’t start out a paragraph with a qualification.</p>
<p>EX of qualification:</p>
<p>It is believed that Galileo discovered that the sun was the center of the universe while he was drunk, or so legend says…
The “or so legend says” acts as a qualifier. I don’t believe the World Series acts in that way.</p>
<p>@lappith, WOW, I said the exact same thing you did…I was writing my paragraph at the same time as yours so I saw yours right after I hit reply.</p>
<p>@ john</p>
<p>-3 mean 2 wrong and one omit. -4 means three wrong. </p>
<p>@yet
A qualification more or less elaborates or gives some necessary info on a statement like I just mentioned…but I don’t think the World Series acted to do so.</p>
<p>@drac313 correct
@johnspreeze -3 is 3 omitted whereas 2 wrong is -2.5 and 3 wrong would be -3.75. I believe -2.5 would round up to -2 for your benefit, but -3.75 would round down to -4. I think.</p>
<p>@lappith, change isn’t the correct word there. they’d be fine with it too and people wouldnt have an issue with it. Change was never even implied, only disdain for the electoral system was</p>