<p>It was the question where it asked what does the author imply when he said “the job” the choices were like eager to join, overconfident. Etx</p>
<p>Eager^</p>
<p>Also from the Turin passage - there was a question about what passage 1 author would think of passage 2 author’s statement about the history of vibration theory - “accurate” or “exaggerated” or something else? That was probably an easy question since I haven’t really seen it mentioned here yet, but I was stuck</p>
<p>I thought the author of p2 wasn’t anti-subjective. He just didn’t like the vibration theory because it was subjective. The vibration theory is that the receptors respond to vibrations of molecules and that’s how we smell. That closely parallels “Some receptors would actually feel the molecules buzz,” so the author would be opposed to this statement. Furthermore ( I don’t even know this is important to note), smells like anise is not something Turin said. It’s just an observation that was made. The author of passage 2 just seemed to be opposed to the theory because it was brazen. He attacks the theory because he says it is not measurement. Turin doesn’t come in until, the last 2 sentences as a further point as a further as to why the theory is bad. Overall, he seemed just to be opposed to the theory, so wouldn’t he disagree with to he buzzing quote (stated above)?</p>
<p>“The idea that the sense of smell operates on the same principle as hearing or vision—namely, vibrations causing neural excitations—has a long pedigree. In 1857, a perfumer named Septimus Piesse placed odors on a musical scale: camphor vibrated one octave above middle C. In 1919, Albert Heyninx proposed that the nose identifies an odor molecule by the selective absorption of light specific to its intramolecular vibra- tions. In 1937, Malcolm Dyson invoked infrared spectroscopy and the Raman Effect. R.H. Wright’s spin in the 1960s was to correlate wave number with psy- chophysical data, to no avail.” Here he talks about how the theory can’t be proven even though many people have tried. Therefore, wouldn’t he disagree with the theory that we smell because vibrations sense the buzzing of the molecules?</p>
<p>“Vibration theory lay dormant for the past three decades largely because it lacks a plausible biological mechanism for con- verting intramolecular vibrations into neu- ronal activation. Recently, however, it was resuscitated by a physiologist and perfume critic named Luca Turin. While implausi- ble, Turin’s proposal is certainly a delight- ful potpourri of creativity, conjecture, extrapolation, and isolated observations. And it’s brazen: a universal theory of smell based on one man’s olfactory impressions. In a grand substitution of ego for psy- chophysics, Turin claims that Turin’s the- ory successfully predicts odors because they smell the way Turin says they do.”</p>
<p>He still talks about why vibration theory sucks. That’s why I chose buzzing. The isn’t opposed to Turin, he just doesn’t believe in the vibration theory, that “Some receptors would actually feel the molecules buzz.”</p>
<p>If he is against the notion of something smelling like something, then there is no way to even prove the theory, which is why I do not think the answer was anise. Although I do see why anise could be right, this one was very iffy.</p>
<p>Pedigree was accurate, not exaggerated </p>
<p>@foolish That was my train of thought exactly. I thought the subjectiveness of Turin’s theory was the second author’s main complaint, because Turin said that even though two molecules were the same shape, they still smelled different.</p>
<p>And the second author is like, “Well maybe TO YOU they smell different, but honestly anise and mustard are kinda the same, so…your theory’s bad…”</p>
<p>Did you guys put A for the primary purpose of the Bijad passage?
What is the “mystery” the author refers to in paragraph 1 (last sentence)? Is it, determining a sequence of events, or how Bijad obtained the land?
What does the “silence” refer to? I put lack of records
Deepening mystery vs plausible theory vs piecemeal story?
Parcel or group?</p>
<p>What did you guys put for that question about what the author suggests about that scientist guy? his fame was shortlived, or he influenced scientists?</p>
<p>It was definitely parcel. I put plausible story and influence scientists.</p>
<p>I remember I put chain of explanation for something. Was that he main purpose question?
I don’t remember the mystery question. Could you give me more info?
I put lack of records for silence. He was still active, it’s just that they did not have record of the activities.
Plausible theory. First, it’s his own theory do why would he think it’s implausible? Second, he goes on the further the explanation when he stated that Bujin spent half here half there. So I think he thinks it’s plausible. I can’t see why it would be deepening mystery when it was all but solved.
Parcel. In India, people say parcel of land LOLOL.
I put anticipates future science. It doesn’t say if it was short lived. Heck, we don’t even know if he got famous since it was largely ignored</p>
<p>Awesome</p>
<p>Did anyone get the math question where it asked how many bottles were shipped, where 8 ounce bottles were shipped in a 16-pack and 6 ounce bottles were shipped in a 24-pack, where they shipped a total amount of 12 lbs?</p>
<p>Did anyone get the math question with the circle and the 80º inner angle, what was the arc length, was 8 the length of the DIAMETER or the RADIUS???</p>
<p>@MovingtoTexas
What are you talking about? Forget the whole subjectivity vs objectivity thing, the P2 guy was criticizing Turin for “substituting ego for scientific validity in determining the behavior of molecules based off how he thought things smelled.” Choice C was a quote about the post-World War I scientist who said things smelled like “anise and mustard” and then based his theory of molecular vibrations off that. It’s pretty obvious if you ask me. The only other debatable choice was E, which was a quote from another scientist who Turin supports, and it had nothing to do with smell, just the vibrations. The vibration part was not addressed at all in Passage 2. You don’t need a copy and pasted article from Google to figure out the semantics when it’s pretty much basic reading comprehension.</p>
<p>Was he mocking passage 1? </p>
<p>^What question are you referring to?</p>
<p>The Turin passage</p>
<p>yes</p>
<p>But what was the question. Do you mean whether P2 was mocking Turin’s theory?</p>
<p>yes he was mocking it</p>