<p>what was the question for the emphatic one? what were the answer choices? </p>
<p>anybody?</p>
<p>I thought for conservation, it was “inevitable” for one of the answers. Don’t remember which one.</p>
<p>Yes you’re right oblivion</p>
<p>it was to attest to her character or whatever, that choice</p>
<p>trojan war passage; wouldn’t the magna carta be a comparison (questioned event vs. unquestioned event?) and the author spends most of that passage refuting the existance of the trojan war so why would the answer still be probably? </p>
<p>does anyone remember the short passage about the kid from vietnam, it had one question (#11 in the section) about what could be inferred from the mother’s statement?</p>
<p>i put inevitable but I was also considering undesirable. I think it’s inevitable though; remember the last paragraph with all those rhetorical questions against conservationists about the inevitable future?</p>
<p>@Inadequate vs. wasteful: I can see how wasteful would work, as P1 might think with all that money, it could be funneled into a more effective project, but I answered inadequate on the grounds that P1 would still see the alternatives as something slightly useful, but ultimately not enough (and thus inadequate) in solving the conservation issues.</p>
<p>coup believes otherwise. I think this can be debatable also.</p>
<p>Wait, I thought we had already decided on “probably, because there’s no evidence against it.”</p>
<p>^no he’s not. Ok guys i think this thread has become “who can persuade the other of what he/she thinks is the correct answer”</p>
<p>
this was on the experimental section, as far as I know, but I got conviction</p>
<p>for the trojan war, isnt there plenty of envidence from LITERATURE, the illiad is still literary evidence but it was a lack of concrete evidence that didnt support the war, although he scarcely mentioned the architecture</p>
<p>it is not homer because the question didn’t ask if theocydides “stuff” (w/e) was based off of Homer’s “stuff.” It asked what theocydides use as support for his theory on how the war occurred.</p>
<p>In a nut shell, YES his theory stemmed from Homer, NO he didn’t use homers epic as evidence. Theocydides used archaeological evidence to support his theory on the supposed trojan war.</p>
<p>PickledCookie</p>
<p>I put concessions, but it’s probably wrong. It might be conviction.</p>
<p>Ok, Harambee, what else was on the experimental section?</p>
<p>@Inevitable vs. undesirable: Maybe I’ve forgotten the exact wording supporting the inevitable choice, but I personally thought undesirable because when P1 paints the picture of the future with current conservation efforts (that eventually there will be pests, weeds, no large vertebrate), he uses that (undesirable) image to persuade the reader to support rewilding, in order to be able to avoid that particular scenario. Just my two cents! (:</p>
<p>@coup: to add to your explanation, it is “inadequate” because the author is in favor of actively changing the ecosystem by adding foreign species. P2 talked about doing research/studies which the author of P1 stated wasn’t enough.</p>
<p>
As far as I know the other stuff on the experimental was the short passage about water bottles, the long passage about rewilding, and the other long passage about an African-American band.</p>
<p>rewilding wasn’t experimental</p>
<p>so is it “probably not because no evidence against”?</p>
<p>i got “exaggeration” for the media and the government question because they were clearly exaggerating the relationship between media and the govt</p>