<p>I’m pretty sure she was like a spy, because it said clues.</p>
<p>No he was bitter. all he did was attack coal and even went further in his criticism than necessary.</p>
<p>Spy sounds a little too clandestine. Archaeologists dig up clues, which sounds about right.</p>
<p>cortana, you might be right. That was one of the trickiest questions on the test. The author was critical AND impassioned.</p>
<p>Spy/Archaeologist and Vehement vs Caustic. Hopefully I guess one of them right. I haven’t seen anything else that I am not sure off</p>
<p>Blogging was qualifying a claim. The author says at the passage’s outset that some can’t see a point to blogging then the quote qualifies this claim.</p>
<p>I really don’t think there is an argument for “spy.” The lines clearly talked about studying fragments and drawing conclusions…</p>
<p>Qualifying a claim means limiting a claim. He wasn’t limiting his claim that blogging has no purpose. He was explaining why people blog hence a phenomenon</p>
<p>how much will -8 be</p>
<p>did you guys get the answer like they underestimated its financial cost for nucelar question?</p>
<p>its like the passage 2’s author says about the part of passage 1</p>
<p>I’m not sure about that one, ProspectiveAppli. I think it went something like this:</p>
<p>"Some think that blogging isn’t worth all the trouble. You have to maintain the website… Why would anyone blog? [The quote launches right here] "</p>
<p>It seemed to me like the quote explains why people blog, in another words “accounting for a phenomenon”</p>
<p>^That is correct and qualify means too limit something. That makes no sense in this context</p>
<p>underestimating financial cost… I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. The author of the first passage didn’t mention anything about how much a green program would cost, so it would be difficult to argue that he low-balled it.</p>
<p>^that is correct also, it was it had been tried because the author in second paragraph said people have already spent billions of dollars on it</p>
<p>Do you have the questions for these?</p>
<p>-Human capacity>>Lawyer learning from past mistakes
-Passage 1 says you can get attention </p>
<p>and can anyone jog my memory about “underestimating financial cost”; I put something else but I don’t remember exactly what.</p>
<p>"-Narrator is “disappointed”
I put that the narrator was dedicated. If someone rejects you multiple times and you say that you wanted to get to know them, I would think that the person still wants to get to know them. If he was disappointed, he would probably have walked away or something.</p>
<p>"-Passage 1 is “overly optimistic”
I disagree. I put that at first but then I re-read the question. It was the opinion of what the people who hated blogging thought. I think I put that they would think that details were incomplete because Passage 1 didn’t mention that even though everyone can express themselves, not everyone will care.</p>
<p>other than getting attention, wasn’t there some answer choice about creativity in the blogging passage? i think i chose that one</p>
<p>@subsidize when you say “apprehension” in your answer list, was “face of the unknown” part of the answer if you remember?</p>
<p>@cortana, I put face the unknown as well. I think the other was a “trap” answer, as it regurgitated part of the passage.</p>
<p>Any idea what -6 and -1(omit) will be? Just calculating worst case scenario.</p>
<p>@ClassicLays:
The question was “Humans have the capacity to use hindsight for foresight” or something. In other words, learning lessons from the past.</p>
<p>It said “I thought we could get along,” not “I want to get along”. Sometime in the past he thought they could be friends. Then he met Fleece. It seems like he’d be disappointed with the encounter. You could be right, though.</p>
<p>@scholasticapt: I think getting attention is the correct answer, because the final sentence of that paragraph was really strong in that regard.</p>
<p>@cortana: Yup, it said something like “apprehension about facing the unknown”</p>
<p>@Subsidize, I agree with you then.</p>