<p>
</p>
<p>can’t “ambitious” be a viable answer choice. The last sentence of P1 said “we cannot still think of contemporary conservation of wildwife as realistic, and cost-free.”</p>
<p>and last paragraph of P2 was asking for too much, non realistically.</p>
<p>So p1 can consider p2 as ambitious? maybe?</p>
<p>ffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu</p>
<p>Now that I know seminole isn’t that smart, I know I messed up on that.</p>
<p>What’s a -2 for CR??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>wasn’t the answer, “probably not, because there is scanty evidence from literature”?</p>
<p>i love you harambeeeee</p>
<p>Still 3 questions with disagreements: </p>
<ul>
<li>Kael: “virtually no one” vs. “discerning moviegoers”</li>
<li>thucydides: “homer” vs. “archaeology”</li>
<li>last question on Kael: “objective” vs. “disagreements”</li>
</ul>
<p>I think still an 800 ^^;;;</p>
<p>Harambee</p>
<p>the conflicting view question…</p>
<p>was it the answer saying the passage 1 author took one side? i cant remember</p>
<p>And the answer is definitely wasteful. It could not have been inadequate because the ideas, which were related to financial resources, were wasteful. You waste money. The author of passage 1 said that the conservationists were only focusing on the existing problem, not making a solution of it. So if you use financial resources to propose alternatives that passage 2 suggested, the author of passage 1 would definitely think that the ideas are wasteful, as in they are only wasting the financial resources/the money. The ideas are inadequate but in context wasteful is a better usage.</p>
<p>Um, no argument over discerning moviegoers. It’s def right…
Homer was proven right, archaeology proven wrong.</p>
<p>I support objective.</p>
<p>Blankusername:</p>
<p>Discerning moviegoers
Homer
Disagreements</p>
<p>
Almost always, its an 800</p>
<p>was one of the answer like</p>
<p>“proxy species wouldnt survive”</p>
<p>I think it was in reference to the camels.</p>
<p>^i took it the march, got -2 on CR, ended up with 780 >:O</p>
<p>if anyone’s interested, here’s the website for sat curves again:
<a href=“http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf[/url]”>http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf</a></p>
<p>for that I put Homer’s epics but i really dont know</p>
<p>whats a -7 and 2 blank, and indian kid sorry that my 2170 isnt good enough for u</p>
<p>@Oblivion: Pretty sure it was probably, with no evidence against it.
[In</a> search of the Trojan War - Google Books](<a href=“In Search of the Trojan War - Michael Wood - Google Books”>In Search of the Trojan War - Michael Wood - Google Books)</p>
<p>^no, it was that they would affect the environment around them or something to that effect</p>
<p>btw let’s go over objective vs. disagreements</p>
<p>(Seminole, 7 wrong and 2 blank is pretty bad. good for you if you’re good at math/writing though)</p>
<p>
alihaq,
wasn’t the answer, “probably not, because there is scanty evidence from literature”?</p>
<p>The author of passage 1 wouldn’t actually discourage educating people on conservation, etc., but he/she believed that it wasn’t enough… so inadequate? I wasn’t positive.</p>