<p>i put cataclysmic but its too extreme. squalid fits a lot better (foul and repulsive, as from lack of care or cleanliness; neglected and filthy. )</p>
<p>Was the epic poem slanderous or trifling?</p>
<p>What was the salient question? </p>
<p>Also, whats the answer to the question about usage of “factory” in the chimp passage?
@bassir i think i put down trifling, anyone else confirm?</p>
<p>Sunny315x: I agree with all of them. Also, tycoon went with philanthropist.</p>
<p>iforgeteasily, I put that it was because they were cooperating and working together in the forest.</p>
<p>i put personal toll</p>
<p>what was the question about chimps being productive?</p>
<p>tycoon/philanthropist</p>
<p>That’s what I put for Madame CJ Walker.</p>
<p>why succinctly?
wasnt it talking about how the artists are similar to cartoonists in that they both portray characters as ___?
i put ludicrously…</p>
<p>can someone refresh my memory; what was the “growing sense of alarm” question?</p>
<p>Sunny315x again:
Nah, I’m pretty sure it was the nuts thing. They weren’t working together; that was one of the points of the author, who said humans work together on tasks to achieve things. I put the nuts because the sentence before that said that the place had nothing but nut trees and then said it was like a factory.</p>
<p>Also, about the factory, I put that it was because they had regimented lives, because none of the others made sense…iono. I wasn’t sure about that.</p>
<p>it was ludicrously</p>
<p>@WootSAT</p>
<p>I also put ludicrously! because cartoonists greatly exaggerate things (like caricatures)…so if it is so ludicrous, then it may look shallow because it doesn’t look like a Van Gogh or a masterpiece focusing on detail rather than humor</p>
<p>I put down ludicrously as well. </p>
<p>@austrianpog : The question about usage of “factory” in the chimp article.
For that i put down different roles of men and women because i saw that all the chimps mentioned in the “nursery” part were female. (i admit i think this is wrong)</p>
<p>Were any of the reading sections experimental or was it a math? Please please be CR</p>
<p>CHIMPANZEE QUESTION:
One of the last questions was asking you to compare the first with the second… or something? “allows humans to care for other beings… etc”
The choice went something like a. One has to do with human emotion and the other is something that chimpanzees may or may not have…
I put choice D for that one (Both are shared by humans and chips (talking about affections and caring for one another).) Is that right???</p>
<p>succinctly makes more sense - they portrayed characters simply but not artificially</p>
<p>No it wasn’t ludicrously. It was succinctly because the sentence mentioned the economy in which they wrote/drew the characters, which means that they were reserved in how they characterized them. Then it said something about the characters seeming shallow, but they aren’t, which also matches up with them being drawn or written about succinctly because they weren’t very deeply characterized.</p>
<p>I got succinctly because it fit the end half of the sentence. Thats what SAT’s usually go for. Ludicrously is too harsh of a word and doesn’t hit the other half.</p>
<p>can anyone remind me what the ostensible question was?</p>