<p>can someone please explain “usefullness to modern technology”</p>
<p>I didn’t think that that answer was as good as another in context of the final paragraph as a whole (i.e. the whole historical speculation thing) but it seems to be the consensus.</p>
<p>Im so borderline 800 right now.</p>
<p>put mocking, admiration, instantly recognizable, and did NOT put “useful to modern technology”</p>
<p>so that’s -1 with 3 being debated. and I think i got 800math/writing</p>
<p>The question asked about why the author used a certain phrase, something about some artists not having a flock of sheep at their disposal. It was mocking. It didn’t satirize the rural background of artists, it mocked the way these stories are relayed by art historians. Hence, I chose mocking.</p>
<p>Now somebody tell me why Gogol was “surprised the work was finished” :D</p>
<p>it can’t be b for that question. the passage was about debunking the myth about genius; the answer choice for B said something like genius was a valuable trait or something like that. the author definetly did not take that stand point.</p>
<p>The question referred to that one only one sentence. That one sentence jeered at how Michelangelo succeeded without sheep. Thus, rustic backrground was the answer.</p>
<p>I am back.</p>
<p>Next, we agreed that answer was not instantly recognizable but rather artificially designed.</p>
<p>no, B was saying that in order for genius to show, it has to be cultivated. women and aristocrats may have genius; however, it never shows because they devote their time to other social pursuits. hence, B.</p>
<p>Gogol was not “surprised the work was finished.” If you read, his roomates went in and out for a few days and he never told them about what he was doing. If it was that he was “surprised it was finished” this would imply that it was a relatively quick process, which it was not. Thus, i put the answer concerning there being a lot of work, or something to that extent.</p>
<p>I like stix did not think that it was technology, the author says that the picture by the astronauts was bad because the cloud got in the way , to me that tells me that he wanted a picture with details, so it wasnt technology, it was the one about details.</p>
<p>“no, B was saying that in order for genius to show, it has to be cultivated. women and aristocrats may have genius; however, it never shows because they devote their time to other social pursuits. hence, B.”</p>
<p>looking back, it asked what did women and aristocrats have in common. that their genius must be cultivated (and something about being valuable)? well that isn’t specific to them.<br>
however that their social condition prevents them from being artists is something they both share and is correct. E.</p>
<p>the author never took the position that “genius” wasn’t valuable, though; the author said that because historians only talk about genius, they overlook other things like social influences. genius is still a good thing; the way people see it developing almost exclusively in nonaristocratic men is what the author indicts.</p>