<p>^yes, yes, yes</p>
<p>thanx 10char</p>
<p>sibsagar12, I selected the same answers for those questions.</p>
<p>procastinate,</p>
<p>I believe the pollution was mentioned LATER in the passage (in the third paragraph, I think), so that can't be the justification for your answer. And when I read your choice, I believe it emphasized the physical manufacturing process, not its effects on people.</p>
<p>what was the answers to the CR passage with the guys from 13000 years ago and 14500 years ago the one that asked to compare passage 1 and 2</p>
<p>was it D? it had to do with like it psg 2 supporting a belief held in passage 1 or something</p>
<p>did anyone have a critical reading passage that had a drawing? then it talked about a rabbit and a duck? please tell me that was experimental</p>
<p>no might have been experimental</p>
<p>I didn't have a passage like that.</p>
<p>ok thanks. than it must have been a experimental. it talked about art and it had an ambigious drawing that said it cud look like a rabbit or a duck</p>
<p>For the Ice age one, I think the relationship of the two passages was something like: Passage 2 supports a claim that passage 1 gives evidence for.</p>
<p>I don't remember the exact wording</p>
<p>i put that passageII offers alternative explanation for a claim stated in passage I
thoughts?</p>
<p>I also put that passage 2 supports the claim that the first passage gave evidence for.</p>
<p>passage two said that they came by boat, passage one said there was a land bridge</p>
<p>it was something like</p>
<p>passage two offers an explanation for a problem presented in passage one</p>
<p>am i wrong?</p>
<p>I also put that passage 2 supports the claim that the first passage gave evidence for.</p>
<p>you sir are correct</p>
<p>no that's not it. PASsage 2 offers new theory! it's about maritime expeditions! the first passage is about land bridges and walking!</p>
<p>sibasgar is right</p>
<p>elliott, you've been a bit shaky on some of these...there was no new theory. it supported the claim that the first passage gave evidence for. the specific evidence was the discovery of **** that was too old. they supported this claim with a bunch of ****, not just theoretical ways they could have come.</p>
<p>edit: ^yeah, what Chone said, the first had lots of bunches of ****, not a new theory</p>
<p>no, passage one does not offer land bridges as theory, but rather portrays it as an old belief discredited by new scientific findings
then passage two presents a theory to explain those scientific findings
hence,
**
passage two offers an explanation for a problem presented in passage one**</p>
<p>hahahahaha actually i might've put that, i don't even think what i was arguing was an answer choice</p>