<p>the passage one said something like : journalists shouldn’t work with the media run by governmnet. and the media run by government would ruin democracy or sometihng</p>
<p>so the answer is it would destory the functining of the government?
but wasn’t the question asking smoething about the ____ journalism?</p>
<p>@Snoopi: I previously linked this.
[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)
I think the conclusion of the passage makes it obvious that the correct choice is “Probably, because there is no contradicting evidence.”</p>
<p>Was there a sentence completion question that had the word copiousness and something about a music library, or was it experimental?</p>
<p>@snoopi: I look at your name and just see Snooki. Sorry. Anyway,
“for the cheetah vs. mammoth one, why couldn’t it be that they’re both good targets for rewilding?”
Because only living species are good targets for rewilding. These species are used to rewild the North American ecosystem which has lost biodiversity/had a lot of extinct animals.
“also, for the trojan passage, why would the answer be it probably DID occur? doesn’t that contradict the entire point of the passage?”
No. The passage is simply exploring whether it existed, not making the point that it didn’t. The passage says there’s no conclusive evidence it DIDN’T happen, so we can say it probably did.</p>
<p>@coupdefoudre: i’m not arguing triumphant is correct; it seems fairly clear most people put resolute. See my post #975: “I thought the use of italics and exclamation mark made the sentence excited; the author was triumphant in getting to the clincher…”</p>
<p>Why is the “less ornate” answer choice better than “she was not unique”… ??</p>
<p>@Kael & two critics question: I think it was already previously agreed upon that the correct answer was that he mentions these two authors to establish that her style was not unique in that others also preferred a less ornate style. She respected these two critics, who were described as “way stations” in the passage between the heavily ornate style and the more colloquial style of Kael.</p>
<p>Ive been gettting 800s on CR, and have to refute 3 questions established by general consensus:</p>
<p>1) The answer is undesirable, and not inevitable. The author says something along the line of “by default or design”, we will decide how much damage will be in our future. The question asks for how the author would characterize the “default” scenario. The author implies that the default scenario is not inevitable, if people change to the new form of proactive conversation rather than the gloomy science of extinction prevention.</p>
<p>2) personal anecdote…insight of character. the answer was something along the lines of “reflect the nature of writing”. the personal anecdote does not show his character, but rather what the author thinks that writing should be like. After the joke, he immediately talks about how writing should be organic (the nature of good writing)</p>
<p>3) the trojan war probably did not occur, because there was no documentary evidence. At almost every paragraph, the author shows that the theory is very unestablished. in the first paragraph, the author italicizes the word “proof”, saying that although there was no “proof”, people still “knew” that the trojan war happened. this is a somewhat sarcastic statement. also, he says “remarkably, thucsius (or whoever his name was) actually believed this theory”. he uses “remarkably”, to show that even though there was no strong basis in the theory, the guy thucius still believed it.</p>
<p>4) what was the “elephants…thriving” sentence completion…can someone tell me what was the question like?</p>
<p>comments please.</p>
<p>i interpreted that part as, “it COULD have happened, but there’s no evidence to support that it did, so it could just as well have not happened”</p>
<p>:'/</p>
<p>I also put “probably not, because there was no evidence” or whatever it said. But then again my best CR score is 640 so obviously I could very well be wrong, but I agree with nooblet.</p>
<p>Gahh!!! Was the answer “she was not unique” or “less ornate”??? T_T</p>
<p>I put all the same answers as you nooblet for those three questions</p>
<p>@Nooblet: To your answer for “Did the Trojan War really happen?” question …</p>
<p>[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>“It should be said, though, that nothing in this interpretation has been rebutted by modern archaeology or textual criticism. It still remains a plausible model … plausible, but as yet incapable of proof.”</p>
<p>Agree with nooblet 10000% on the undesirable vs inevitable question.</p>
<p>@Jolly: I’m pretty sure they were the same answer … unless I’m remembering incorrectly.</p>
<p>@nooblet
I agree on 1 and 2. On 3 I can see both sides. I put probably, however, because of the conclusion. However, now I am starting to wonder if I was correct because I remember it said “plausible” not “probable”. Soooo, #3 could go either way.</p>
<p>I don’t remember the elephant thriving question.</p>
<p>^I also agree. The conclusion said that it was plausible in italics.
Yes, but the sentence that was referred to in the question began with “surely”, thus making it seem like inevitable was the answer. </p>
<p>
I don’t think elephants was in the sentence. I’m sure thriving was</p>
<p>Oh, now that I’ve looked at the passage on google…
I would go with my original answer “probably but no factual information supports” or whatever. Because look at the 2nd to last sentence as well. It basically says, yeah there’s no evidence, but it should also be noted that there is also no evidence against it too. So it still remains a possible model, but it can’t be proved. Hahah, he is repetitive isn’t he?</p>
<p>What is 0-2 wrong with 2 omitted?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree, is this now a confirmed answer?</p>
<p>@Harambee: Here is the article for the P1 of the rewilding set:
<a href=“http://www.advancedconservation.org/…_etal_2006.pdf%5B/url%5D”>http://www.advancedconservation.org/…_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 Earths 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 modelmaintaining 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>Your reference to “surely” fails to take into account the context that it is in. The “default” scenario in the future is if we decide against rewilding, and only then will we “surely” suffer the consequences of pests, weeds, and no large vertebrate.</p>