<p>this was the reading experimental: the one with the girl and the parade/the football fandom</p>
<p>Coupdefoudre, that makes complete sense. And if such an undesirable future was inevitable, why try? But then again, he does tell you to try. He thinks conservation is a waste since they are trying to cling on to animals that will inevitably be extinct. So damn confusing.</p>
<p>After reading all these possible answers, I don’t know whether to be happy or scared.</p>
<p>I just took the test
gahh i reallly wish people would add on to the list not merely blurt out answers
cough cough</p>
<p>@iFailSAT—</p>
<p>If the studies, which require the use of financial resources, weren’t enough, then wouldn’t the ideas be wasteful?</p>
<p>inevitable, because of how it was phrased in the passage.</p>
<p>“undesirable” is implied in the passage. But, when another answer choice is specifically stated in passage (i.e. supported) it trumps all other choices.</p>
<p>@iaahs</p>
<p>it was “analogy,” even though I sadly rushed through it and put “exaggeration”. It was comparing similar things.</p>
<p>@Mabs: Was that a choice? I think you’re mixing together two.</p>
<p>Papapia, I agree. If extinction is inevitable, then p2 is wasting money on conservation. i really don’t know.</p>
<p>ifailatsat, that was exactly my mindset for choosing that answer. if it wasn’t inevitable, the argument would lose substance.</p>
<p>it was definitely exaggeration. Idk why ppl are discussing this. That question was a fkinng joke.</p>
<p>Was the Sonny’s blues passage experimental?</p>
<p>All of you are over-thinking the “inevitable” question. I can tell you your kind of reasoning may be valid elsewhere, but not on the SAT.</p>
<p>^yes i did not have that one.</p>
<p>@papapia yes “wasteful” is implied. BUT, the author of P1 specifically states (somewhere in the middle of P1 about something “conservation”) that those alternate solution listed in P2 weren’t enough. IT is my opinion that answers specifically supported in text trumps all others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>why wasn’t it “analogy”? i put “exaggeration” as well and if you convince me that i got it right, i shall enjoy the movie i’m about to go see soon.</p>
<p>it was analogy</p>
<p>“is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)”</p>
<p>it went from radio or whatever to pbs</p>
<p>What was the
-question with the “emphatic” answer (pbs)?
-exaggeration answer’s question?</p>
<p>I put analogy, too. Damn this SAT CR was hard. In June, it was so much easier to make a consolidated list.</p>
<p>iFailatSAT—</p>
<p>you’re not thinking in terms of the context of the sentence. Sure the ideas were inadequate. But the question referred to using the FINANCIAL RESOURCES to do whatever the alternative plans were proposed by passage 2. Financial resources are WASTED, not INADEQUATE…</p>
<p>Just for reference purposes, can everyone put, honestly, the scores that they had gotten on CR sections? So we know whose answer is credible and whose is not.</p>
<p>Here is the article for the P1 of the rewilding set:
<a href=“http://www.advancedconservation.org/library/donlan_etal_2006.pdf[/url]”>http://www.advancedconservation.org/library/donlan_etal_2006.pdf</a></p>
<p>"In the coming century, we will decide, by default or design, on the extent to which humanity tolerates other species and thus the future of biodiversity. The default scenario will surely include ever more landscapes dominated by pests and weeds, the global extinction of more large vertebrates, and a continuing struggle to slow the loss of biodiversity. Pleistocene rewilding informs an optimistic, alternative conceptual framework that fundamentally challenges our views of nature and seeks to transform conservation biology from a reactive into a proactive discipline. The potential benefits of several proposed proxies have been outlined here. While sound science can help mitigate the risks of Pleistocene rewilding, the potential for unexpected consequences will worry many conservationists. Yet, given the apparent dysfunction of New World ecosystems and Earth’s overall state, there are likely significant risks of inaction as well. In the face of tremendous uncertainty, science and society must weigh the costs and benefits of Pleistocene rewilding against the equally uncertain, costly, and often obscure benefits provided by the prevailing conservation model—maintaining the status quo or, at best, retrieving something of the very recent past.</p>
<p>We ask those who find objections to Pleistocene rewilding compelling, are you content with the negative slope of our current conservation philosophy? Are you content that your descendants might well live in a world devoid of these and other large species? We reiterate our earlier plea that, although the obstacles to Pleistocene rewilding are substantial and the risks are not trivial, we can no longer accept a hands-off approach to wilderness preservation as realistic, defensible, or costfree. It is time to not only save wild places but rewild and reinvigorate them."</p>
<p>– page 15, column 2.</p>
<p>I tried to cut out some of the excess, but there’s still a bit in there.</p>