<p>I thought thingness was fixed nature.</p>
<p>@MovingtoTexas
For the letter, I have no idea.
I just looked up the definition for absolute, and it says “free from restriction or limitation”. Haha. Bit tricky, so I can’t say.</p>
<p><a href=“Confirmed - Google Docs”>Confirmed - Google Docs;
<p>Restored to the latest version possible.</p>
<p>Due to the possibility of more ■■■■■■■■, I’ve decided to change the documents to comments only, but that doesn’t discourage you guys from adding on to the document. Whenever possible, I will try to look at all the comments and add to or revise the list.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I’ve set up another document for active discussion:</p>
<p><a href=“16,85 Discussion - Google Docs”>16,85 Discussion - Google Docs;
<p>So if you guys have any doubts on any of the answers on the list, discuss your concerns here!</p>
<p>@isolate8
Thingness is kind of a hard thing to describe. Fixed nature would make sense. I associate thingness with being like tangible or very distinct… Plastic can be anything.</p>
<p>for the plastics article, was the “thingness” referring to tangible object or fixed nature?</p>
<p>Fixed nature I guess; I was just trying to find another way to describe it.</p>
<p>This test was pretty tough in comparison to practice tests. </p>
<p>To be honest, I went into the test assuming that I’d get an 800 in math, going off the practice tests. But, much to my despair, I omitted a good 6. But in writing, I probably missed 2, omitted one; same with critical reading.</p>
<p>Because this test was “experimental” and had elements in it not previously seen, I think the curve will be generous.</p>
<p>Does anyone recollect an identifying sentence error question that had something to do with type’s of deer?
I hope it was in my experimental section, but I’ve yet to discern which section was the experimental section.</p>
<p>What was the answer to the question asking for the radius of a circle, where it’s x and y coordinates after being plugged into a formula is less than -41 and greater than -46? Was this the experimental section (also about how many glasses did the company ship)?</p>
<p>Was the movie critics one indebted and honest experimental? What were the other answers for that?</p>
<p>The movie critics was indebted and honest. The other answers did not make sense. @unproductive</p>
<p>writing
Payphones have become obsolete with the increase of mobile devices, but they (had) revolutionized communication.
wasn’t this sentence "Payphones have become obsolete with the increase of mobile devices, but they ONCE (had) revolutionized communication.</p>
<p>how many put had? how many without had? why</p>
<p>This was confusing. It could go either way. I think it is had because it informs that the revolution occurred BEFORE the increase of
Mobile
Devices. </p>
<p>@Hawkace okay, I just feel like I may have misread that question then, because I faintly remember putting honest but don’t remember putting indebtness. </p>
<p>Can someone elaborate the Montenegro question please? Not how it is correct but describe the sentence. I forget if I put no error. To my recollection, there was an error because it was either in an incorrect tense oand/or gerrund. The second clause referred back to the twentieth century…</p>
<p>@juniormathwiz It definitely “had”. “When it was first introduced, it has revolutionized communications” Past perfect is used when one thing occurs during an another event. Introductoin—> revolution. It’s “had”</p>
<p>@phendaphen I don’t quite remember the question that you are referring to</p>
<p>What question would challenge the author’s theory about Lucy and her husband during the summer of that year? </p>
<p>Was the answer: If Lucy and the kids were in Deerfield, why did they disappear from the records? </p>
<p>@ScrewCC For some reason, I put down "if the men left the village, would their records disappear as well??</p>
<p>Since, the women and children were in the house which explains why they “disappeared from the records”</p>
<p>Ok so what was the answer to the 1/2x, 1.5 <x<2.5 one was it .3 or .2</p>
<p>@doctator It was .3</p>