<p>lol!!</p>
<p>“rolling it in her mouth…”</p>
<p>Sorry…</p>
<p>It’s fanciful then. And rich history.</p>
<p>tbonus, i agree with you on batt vs. gas</p>
<p>scott: that vocab was probably experimental (i didnt have)</p>
<p>cross: author was talking how it felt interesting to say words, just like rolling marbles in mouth - i think history was out of scope, but just my opinion</p>
<p>found that here: [Wired</a> 11.04: How Hydrogen Can Save America](<a href=“http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html]Wired”>How Hydrogen Can Save America | WIRED)</p>
<p>Yeah, senses = taste,touch,smell,hear,see</p>
<p>“rolling words” has nothing to do with tasting something.</p>
<p>ehh tbonus i really disagree. the argument in context was showing why fuel cells were so applicable to cars, and the paragraph gave several benefits that cars could have from fuel cells, including the efficiency vs. using gas. i think the primary purpose was definitely to argue that cars were an excellent application of the fuel cell.</p>
<p>It was rich history because it asked what the passage suggested as a whole, not in just those lines.</p>
<p>lol for the rich history. It was in context. She mentions ancient languages and stuff.</p>
<p>i disagree it can not be deliberate insincerity because you find out she has the same feelings at the end, indignant rebuke makes more sense</p>
<p>cross - i would contend that it’s feel/touch, plus, i dont see how history applied … sorry to be devils advocate</p>
<p>anyone find article?</p>
<p>i put cars were an excellent application of the fuel cell.
the battery vs. gas choice ignores the “fuel cell” aspect.</p>
<p>tbonus thanks for finding passage 1, but the comparison question has to do with passage 2.</p>
<p>thanks CommodorePerry, i agree completely</p>
<p>how many editions of this test are there, and can people please start discussing the one about sponges and the activist</p>
<p>perry - we’re like 50/50 on that one (i personally when batt vs gas)</p>
<p>language - it may have talked about history, but a little child wouldnt be fascinated with the words because of their history - she was fascinated because they were interesting and new to say</p>
<p>No. Most of us didn’t have a sponges and activist one. So it is experimental I’m assuming.</p>
<p>Can you explain why the “childish vocab. one” is right?</p>
<p>“bethoven = ethusiastic about new work” </p>
<p>Could someone elaborate about this question? I don’t remember anything talking about Beethoven.</p>
<p>guys, we should have a compiliation of vocab as well. anyone remember alot of them?</p>
<p>For the language one about Lisa, was the daughter’s question in the last paragraph meant to axcknowledge that we must part with baby words or something like that?</p>
<p>Agree w/ crosstheuniverse.</p>
<p>vocab. compilation.</p>
<p>altruism
prescient
elites/latitude
compilation/commemorate
uncorroborated/ephemeral
histrionics
gregarious
tacitrun
informs??</p>
<p>shizzle, it seems like every section is experimental, can you be more specific in saying which sections are experimental. and i will answer that “childish” one if you give me more detail on the question.</p>
<p>The composer stated often that his work is the greatest since that of Beethoven. This remark shows his enthusiasm about his work.</p>