<p>I had writing experimental, ■■■. And I had a completely different CR than all of you! I had one on like a girl named Maria who is moving away from the ocean, a marine biologist, and Ella Fitzgerald.</p>
<p>on lang, tabernacle, tresspasses are SENSORY because she “rolled them around in her mouth like marbles”</p>
<p>Are you int. or US?</p>
<p>Just a minute, though, for the tabernacle question… it should be sensory quality.</p>
<p>Anybody remember an answer “softhearted”?</p>
<p>I put rich history for that one.</p>
<p>I didn’t put softhearted… put fanciful instead. But that doesn’t seem right.</p>
<p>i was stuck on that for a while… r u sure?</p>
<p>it wasnt softhearted letter a… it was letter c i forget the word at the moment</p>
<p>I put sensory for the tabernacle, trespasses, covenant, etc. question as well.</p>
<p>For the Hydrogen one, was there an answer of how Alaskan Wildlife can be viewed the same way</p>
<p>wasnt (a) softhearted, it was fanciful or something</p>
<p>does anyone remember vocab question about authoritarian regime, like actual phrasing?</p>
<p>tbonus- c was fanciful. You put that also?</p>
<p>Although the authoritarian regime granted rights to the ____ of the opposition parties, its rank-and-file members still had no ____ in/to political something something.</p>
<p>@shizzle
I’m US</p>
<p>it wasn’t softhearted. it was “ambitious” because the “romantic rubbish” was explicitly attributed to the statements that the city was the capital of the incas and that it was religiously significant. those were unsubstantiated theories. “fanciful” and “softhearted” have lol nothing to do with the passage</p>
<p>i think you guys put fanciful cuz it sounded like it had to do with “romantic” but i think that was a trap</p>
<p>romantic rubbish = fanciful</p>
<p>was there any vocab passage with blithe, verbose, inveigle? or something like that? or was that part of experimental.</p>
<p>also, did anyone had reaading passage about bird/mammal territory behaviors?</p>
<p>Idk about that one. The Inca passage sucked in general.</p>
<p>fanciful… is what I put. tbonus agrees. Other than that no one else thinks so.</p>
<p>I got a horrible CR passage dealing with Objective physics, Newton, and Shakespeare. I’m pretty sure it was experimental because I had 4 CR and the questions were RIDICULOUSLY impossible.</p>
<p>sorry to bring this back up but it was comparison of battery/gas because it said that battery power could go 3x farther but not with the same power… the other answers were kind of right if you applied them to other parts of the paragraph</p>
<p>"Four decades ago, the United States faced a creeping menace to national security. The Soviet Union had lobbed the first satellite into space in 1957. Then, on April 12, 1961, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin blasted off in Vostok 1 and became the first human in orbit. </p>
<p>President Kennedy understood that dominating space could mean the difference between a country able to defend itself and one at the mercy of its rivals. In a May 1961 address to Congress, he unveiled Apollo - a 10-year program of federal subsidies aimed at “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” The president announced the goal, Congress appropriated the funds, scientists and engineers put their noses to the launchpad, and - lo and behold - Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface eight years later.</p>
<p>The country now faces a similarly dire threat: reliance on foreign oil. Just as President Kennedy responded to Soviet space superiority with a bold commitment, President Bush must respond to the clout of foreign oil by making energy independence a national priority. The president acknowledged as much by touting hydrogen fuel cells in January’s State of the Union address. But the $1.2 billion he proposed is a pittance compared to what’s needed. Only an Apollo-style effort to replace hydrocarbons with hydrogen can liberate the US to act as a world leader rather than a slave to its appetite for petroleum.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, America’s oil addiction was primarily an environmental issue. Hydrocarbons are dirty - befouling the air and water, possibly shifting the climate, and causing losses of biodiversity and precious coastal real estate. In those terms, the argument is largely political, one of environmental cleanliness against economic godliness. The horror of 9/11 changed that forever. Buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center was the myth that America can afford the dire costs of international oil politics. The price of the nation’s reliance on crude has included '70s-style economic shocks, Desert Storm-like military adventures, strained relationships with less energy-hungry allies, and now terror on our shores. </p>
<p>George W. Bush arrived in Washington, DC, as a Texan with deep roots in the oil business. In the days following September 11, however, he transformed himself into the National Security President. Today, his ambition to protect the United States from emerging threats overshadows his industry ties. By throwing his power behind hydrogen, Bush would be gambling that, rather than harming Big Oil, he could revitalize the moribund industry. At the same time, he might win support among environmentalists, a group that has felt abandoned by this White House.</p>
<p>According to conventional wisdom, there are two ways for the US to reduce dependence on foreign oil: increase domestic production or decrease demand. Either way, though, the country would remain hostage to overseas producers. Consider the administration’s ill-fated plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For all the political wrangling and backlash, that area’s productivity isn’t likely to offset declining output from larger US oil fields, let alone increase the total supply from domestic sources. As for reducing demand, the levers available are small and ineffectual. The average car on the road is nine years old, so even dramatic increases in fuel efficiency today won’t head off dire consequences tomorrow. Moreover, the dynamism at the heart of the US economy depends on energy. Growth and consumption are inextricably intertwined.</p>
<p>There’s only one way to insulate the US from the corrosive power of oil, and that’s to develop an alternative energy resource that’s readily available domestically. Looking at the options - coal, natural gas, wind, water, solar, and nuclear - there’s only one thing that can provide a wholesale substitute for foreign oil within a decade: hydrogen. Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind. It’s plentiful, clean, and - critically - capable of powering cars. Like manned space flight in 1961, hydrogen power is proven but primitive, a technology ripe for acceleration and then deployment. (For that, thank the Apollo program itself, which spurred the development of early fuel cells.)</p>
<p>Many observers view as inevitable the transition from an economy powered by fossil fuels to one based on hydrogen. But that view presupposes market forces that are only beginning to stir. Today, power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times more than power from its internal combustion counterpart; it’ll take a lot of R&D to reduce that ratio. More daunting, the notion of fuel cell cars raises a chicken-and-egg question: How will a nationwide fueling infrastructure materialize to serve a fleet of vehicles that doesn’t yet exist and will take decades to reach critical mass? Even hydrogen’s boosters look forward to widespread adoption no sooner than 30 to 50 years from now. That’s three to five times too long.</p>
<p>Adopting Kennedy’s 10-year time frame may sound absurdly optimistic, but it’s exactly the kick in the pants needed to jolt the US out of its crippling complacency when it comes to energy. A decade is long enough to make a serious difference but short enough that most Americans will see results within their lifetimes. The good news is that the technical challenges are issues of engineering rather than science. That means money can solve them.</p>
<p>How much money? How about the amount spent to put a man on the moon: $100 billion in today’s dollars. With that investment, the nation could shift the balance of power from foreign oil producers to US energy consumers within a decade. By 2013, a third of all new cars sold could be hydrogen-powered, 15 percent of the nation’s gas stations could pump hydrogen, and the US could get more than half its energy from domestic sources, putting independence within reach. All that’s missing is a national commitment to make it happen.</p>
<p>It’d be easy - too easy - to misspend $100 billion. So the White House needs a plan. The strategy must take advantage of existing infrastructure and strengthen forces propelling the nation toward hydrogen while simultaneously removing obstacles. There are five objectives:"</p>
<p>NEVERMIND, its FANCIFUL. I STAND CORRECTED, DAMN.</p>
<p>I put rich history because the paragraph before had an entire paragraph on the history of it. Not sure how “rolling it in her mouth” has anything to do with senses.</p>