<p>inevitable</p>
<p>uniform=unanimous</p>
<p>inevitable-- would you mind explaining why? thanks!</p>
<p>@Harambee: Ohdear. Are there sometimes two reading experimentals? I can’t remember if this is has come up before.</p>
<p>Undesirable. -_-
Hahaha. </p>
<p>Think of it this way: If it is inevitable, then why is the entire article arguing about rewilding or whatever in ORDER to prevent it from happening. However it is OBVIOUSLY undesirable. You cannot choose both inevitable and undesirable, therefore it must be undesirable as that is the better answer.</p>
<p>^ no it is undesirable</p>
<p>I distinctly remember it talked about two choice, that the default one is what’s most likely (implied) yet undesirable. If it is inevitable, why would the author talk about two scenario/plans?</p>
<p>undesirable…def not inevitable.</p>
<p>@Frankensteinz: If you look back a few pages, the reason for undesirable has already been made clear.</p>
<p>Can anyone besides Harambee remember whether or not “less ornate” and “she was not unique” were the same answer choice for the author regarding the two other authors??</p>
<p>^ thank you naomikt ! i put undesirable. hope thats right :)</p>
<p>
I don’t know, but it seems like there were 2 experimental reading sections in this administration of the SAT…</p>
<p>^yeah i’m pretty sure less ornate and she was not unique were the same choice. it went something like “she was not unique in using less ornate language”</p>
<p>Please! Tell em the other answer choices for the “illicit” question for the 1000000th time…</p>
<p>On that rewilding question on which everyone seems to be arguing between “wasteful” and “inadequate”, I picked “ambitious” (I think I foolishly eliminated “inadequate” early on or else just didn’t see it). At this point, I’m unsure. I don’t think any one of the answers clearly comes out on top. I’ve managed to dig up some parts of the passages. Enjoy:</p>
<p>The author of passage 1 says,</p>
<p>“…although the obstacles to Pleistocene Rewilding are indeed substantial and the risks are not trivial, we can no longer accept a hands-off approach to wilderness preservation as realistic, defensible, or cost-free. It is time to not only save wildplaces, but to rewild and reinvigorate them.”</p>
<p>The author of passage 2 says,</p>
<p>“If financial and physical resources were available on this scale, they would be better spent on developing and field-testing new ways to manage and conserve indigenous populations of African, Asian, and North American wildlife in their historically- populated native habitats, on conducting ecological, behavioral, and demographic studies of these organisms in the environments in which they evolved, and on educating the public on each continent about the wonders of their own dwindling flora and fauna.”</p>
<p>Reasoning:</p>
<p>While I was taking the test, it seemed to me that the author of passage 2 thought that problems could be solved through funding for initiatives that were essentially the same type of conservation thinking as has been going on (rather than rewilding). As seen in the quote above, the author of passage 1 characterizes these approaches as unrealistic. To me, that’s the same as “ambitious”, in the sense that it means “aiming to accomplish a lofty goal but unlikely to succeed”.</p>
<p>Upon further review, I don’t think the specific proposals listed were particularly lofty (except for the education part), which hurts my case for “ambitious”. However, I think “inadequate” and “wasteful” are equally good choices. “Inadequate” is appropriate because passage 2’s proposals (hands-off development of conservation practices, random studies, educating people with doom and gloom) are unlikely to produce enough change by passage 1’s standards. At the same time, it logically follows that such efforts would be a waste of money (indeed, such efforts are described as indefensible).</p>
<p>I think it’s a bad question, but that’s just me. I invite you all to rip apart my assessment.</p>
<p>-bw</p>
<p>did you guys talk about the “fizz” and american slang in regards to the kael article yet</p>
<p>Did anyone else have an experimental about a girl watching the sunrise on her tenth birthday?</p>
<p>Edit: Some of the questions about it were:
- The tone of the sunrise in the beginning - anticipation.
- What best describes the paragraph about how her siblings told her the veterans parade that took place was actually for her birthday - a change in her thinking.
- The other people that added their floats to the parade were opportunistic because they only want to promote their own interests (advertising their own businesses).
- The shadows of the trees were described as ‘cumbrous’ like ocean liners because of the slow, steady progress across the grass.</p>
<p>Can we add circumspect and erroneously to the list??? or was the the answer to an experimental. </p>
<p>Also does anyone remember if the one with the elephants thriving was an easy one because I dont remember it and I hope I didnt miss it.</p>
<p>its inadequate…passage 1 says that anything less than rewildering is not adequate. this is definetely right.</p>
<p>what would 10 wrong be?</p>
<p>DOES ANYONE remember what question decorum was teh answer to:?</p>