<p>i agree with ethetique about the anecdote</p>
<p>-2 = 800 , you are a badass</p>
<p>nature of writing</p>
<p>relationship b/t style and substance</p>
<p>Can any else confirm that these are indeed two separate correct answers to two questions</p>
<p>hmm…i remember the anecdote was about how he was thinking hard one day, and then Kael (or however you spell it) was like i always think with a pencil. i guess i can see why it’s nature of writing now. but then the sentence that follows that anecdote made me choose introduction. (i wish i remembered what it was an into to…)</p>
<p>
I remember it as an answer choice, but I’m not 100% sure if it’s the correct answer</p>
<p>i see what you guys are saying. The text said, however, humans are responsible for damaging the PROSPECTS of restoration. I remember that word for sure. And indeed, the extinction took place before humans.</p>
<p>@XRcatd - it mentioned future generation. maybe not the same wording.</p>
<p>@ linger</p>
<p>yes
anecdote was separate asking for its purpose
the style and substance was asking what the last paragraph was primarily about</p>
<p>
Yes, they were for two different questions.</p>
<p>oh and is it agreed that the historian’s research on the Trojan War was based on Homer’s writings the most? or is it archaeologic study…</p>
<p>ok thanks jolly and topreamen</p>
<p>So are those both the correct answers because I dont think I saw them on the list.</p>
<p>@esthetique, I just considered an antidote a permanent cure and a stimulant something a temporary emotional or physical euphria. It said his happiness was short-lived so I picked stimulant. Either way I guess -4 or -3 doesn’t make that big a difference</p>
<p>[Sontag</a> & Kael: opposites attract me - Google Books](<a href=“Sontag and Kael: Opposites Attract Me - Craig Seligman - Google Books”>Sontag and Kael: Opposites Attract Me - Craig Seligman - Google Books)</p>
<p>page 15 is the critic article</p>
<p>@blug blug Hi! um…idk you, and I’m not amy lol</p>
<p>I can see why you guys all put stimulant but I think you were over thinking it.</p>
<p>I think stimulant is over thinking it a bit. The actual definition of antidote is “A remedy or other agent used to neutralize or counteract the effects of a poison.” The poison would be his anger, the antidote neutralizes or counteracts it. I think stimulant would infer that he got a natural high off of it, I don’t think that’s what the passage meant, I think it meant that the path served as an antidote to his anger. Just my two cents, I think stimulant is a classic collegeboard overthinking answer.</p>
<p>but then the sentence that follows that anecdote made me choose introduction. (i wish i remembered what it was an into to…) </p>
<p>i put intro!! because after that the writer started talking about writing</p>
<p>
I wrote: The pianist said that he doesn’t purposely play accurately
—How does that sound like I said the pianist plays inaccurately on purpose? Regardless, it’s whatever at this point. It doesn’t really matter.</p>
<p>
Whether or not a biographer would actually do such a thing is irrelevant to the answer.</p>
<hr>
<p>I also put antidote.</p>
<p>I put antidote! Because he was trying to get rid of his anger and become happy again, or somethign like that!</p>
<p>i can’t be certain that it’s intro now since i don’t remember what it was an intro to…</p>
<p>"
“What are you doing?” “Thinking,” I told her. (I wasn’t). She said, “I only think with a pencil in my hand.” It was just a small joke, but it got at something. You sit down….and by the time you get up from the desk, you know what you thinking.”
"</p>
<p>Thats the anecdote
i think it clearly shows introduction</p>