<p>Well, because Wenner thought that Perez's results were admissible because it was the wind that carried the butterflies.</p>
<p>yeah i think i put that one too leah</p>
<p>Yeah, I also put the wind factor thing.</p>
<p>I definitely put that the WIND HAD A BIG EFFECT!</p>
<p>But did you guys notice that Wenner didn't actually MENTION wind a single time in his passage? He just talked about skewed data, NOT actual reasons it got messed up. He did NOT talk about the wind, even though that seems like a significant reason for error.</p>
<p>Actually, he did mention wind in the very last paragraph. When asked what his theory about migration was, he replied that the wind was the factor.</p>
<p>Butterfly Questions </p>
<hr>
<p>First, the Butterfly Paired Passage Definitely Counted!</p>
<p>Here are the questions and answers I remember:</p>
<ol>
<li>Wenner's attitude is DISMISSIVE.</li>
<li>As Wenner understands it, migration implies AN ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
(this one was close. I almost put INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR)</li>
<li>Open = UNOBSTRUCTED</li>
<li>PAINSTAKING NATURE OF THE ENDEAVOR (has to do with the first paragraph of passage 1 ie mapping all of the lines)</li>
<li>FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES</li>
<li>Does anyone remember "ALL ENCOMPASSING SKEPTICISM as an answer?</li>
<li>I put an answer that had to do with the return trip.</li>
<li>"WIND" figured in at least two of my answers
Hey, can anyone remember the question for 5 & 6?</li>
</ol>
<p>Butterfly Questions </p>
<hr>
<p>First, the Butterfly Paired Passage Definitely Counted!</p>
<p>Here are the questions and answers I remember:</p>
<ol>
<li>FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES</li>
<li>Does anyone remember "ALL ENCOMPASSING SKEPTICISM as an answer?</li>
</ol>
<p>Can anyone remember the Q's for 5 and 6?</p>
<p>wenner does mention wind, and he talks about it at the end. agree with etti.</p>
<p>YOMAMA - It is not adaptive capacity it is definately instinctive behavior. That was Werner's main point.</p>
<p>word to yo mama.</p>
<p>definitely instinctive behavior.</p>
<p>Totally wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm positive that Wenner's argument suggested that migration implies volition and intent. Not an adaptive capacity, not an instinctive behavior. Hell, they're essentially the same bloody thing.</p>
<p>there was an answer that had something about butterflies intentionally migrating. I picked that one. i forget if it was the one w/ instinct in it...don't really remember the answer choices...just remember the correct one stood out like a sore thumb.</p>
<p>Point of wenner's argument here was that butterflies don't consciously migrate, that basically migration is an exclusively human quality. therefore it can be inferred, that butterflies don't actually "migrate" they just get carried.</p>
<p>Nottt fortuitous circumstances, notttt adaptive capacity..it was the one about how they CHOSE to migrate, because Wenner looked at migration as a conscious effort rather than an instinctive one.</p>
<p>Leah377 is right…</p>
<p>thats a hard question…was it painstaicking endeavor or insight into making a method
because nowhere in the first paragraph does it say that they had to put so much effort
it was not even an inference question</p>
<p>Painstaking endeavor, definitely. First paragraph contained a sentence that explained how they followed the butterflies, which had been captured during a period of 30 years. (Which of course implies extreme dedication, meticulousness.)</p>
<p>Here’s what I put: </p>
<ol>
<li>dismissive</li>
<li>deliberate</li>
<li>unobstructed</li>
<li>painstaking</li>
<li>something about the wind</li>
<li>her data was based on observations (something about a pertinent answer)</li>
</ol>
<p>I did put something about encompassing skepticism.
what is the question for the whole adaptive/instinctive behavior? I don’t remember. </p>
<p>it definitely was a painstaking endeavor</p>