<p>@studiousmaximus, so what was the correct answer for that question?</p>
<p>You’re answer isn’t right. You were tricked straight up. That question was blatantly obvious. I hate discussing reading because people argue questions that have no business being argued. I don’t want to sound rude but I don’t know how to explain why the other answer was correct. I wish we had the text for these.</p>
<p>@himichelle: I’m not going to claim that mine was the definitive correct answer, but I’m pretty confident that the answer was the one with “physicists” in it. I’m not so sure what the alternative is, as no one has posted a close paraphrase/word-for-word answer yet. Can someone please post what they put and try to back it up? I want to see some other viewpoints (instead of just posts attacking my answer).</p>
<p>As for the essay, I got the same prompt and filled up both pages (to the last line).</p>
<p>@Divy: I’ve presented my case. You haven’t presented yours, and you admit that you can’t explain the alternative choice. That’s no kind of argument. How am I supposed to believe your answer is right if you can’t even substantiate it?</p>
<p>was the answer to the question something about commercialization? or the one about campaign sale demand?? the campaign sale didn’t seem to make too much sense…</p>
<p>Do you think if I had a third not quite as developed answer due to space (almost ran out of room) I can still get a 12?</p>
<p>now i don’t even know what passage you guys are talking about x_x</p>
<p>Did anyone get 1420 for the last question in one of the math sections? something with a graph about kids missing 1-3 days of school, and that 5% of the kids missed 1 day of school, and then they asked you to find the total number of kids in the school.</p>
<p>for the writing question, was the answer “interchangeably?”</p>
<p>studious, the question asked what the change between 1950 and 1951. The passage stated that “and it was not because a circular motion became attractive” or something like that, and then talked about how commercial advertising directly increased the popularity of the yoyo. I don’t see how you could imply that physicists made a discovery during this period.</p>
<p>It was something about a sales campaign for yoyos he talks about it a couple lines after. The marketing revolution wasn’t ever stated.</p>
<p>Guys, for the writing question, was the answer “interchangeably?”???</p>
<p>i put interchangeably</p>
<p>Because that answers brutally straight forward. He STATES “it was not because of some new interest in circular motion” the change was said to be a “new commercial interest in yoyos” he also says that “this is the American answer to everything” the change parallels the sudden change in dinomania. There was NO mention of any physicists finding nothing he just says circular motion didn’t start new interest. Clearly that’s not the change. In fact he said that scientific findings don’t change anything because people would have to be interested already to care or something. Literally, before that sentence in question was even brought up he refutes the claim that scientific reasons are reasons for a change in interest.</p>
<p>[Dinomania</a> by Stephen Jay Gould | The New York Review of Books](<a href=“Dinomania | Stephen Jay Gould | The New York Review of Books”>Dinomania | Stephen Jay Gould | The New York Review of Books)</p>
<p>This has the text, but it’s not exact (as in, some of the wording has been changed). </p>
<p>Here’s the necessary excerpt: “When I was growing up on the streets of New York City, yo-yo crazes would sweep through kiddie culture every year or two, usually lasting for a month or so. These crazes were not provoked by any technological improvement in the design of yo-yos (just as more competent dinosaurs do not engender dinomania). Similarly, a Jungian substrate rooted in control over contained circular motion will not explain why every kid needed a yo-yo in July 1951, but not in June 1950 (just as dinosaurs are always available, but only sometimes exploited).”</p>
<p>I don’t remember the Jungian substrate part, so I think that was edited out. Anyway, the key is in “contained circular motion will not explain why every kid needed a yo-yo in July 1951, but not in June 1950.” This suggests that there was research conducted on circular motion during this period, but that that research was not responsible for the boost in yo-yo popularity. It is a bit troublesome that the exact lines in question were re-worded on the test, so this isn’t totally definitive. But it’s an improvement. Where in here is something about marketing strategies? All I see is a reference to new physics research.</p>
<p>@Divy: I don’t like repeating myself, but once again, it did not ask what changed <em>that caused the rise in popularity</em>.</p>
<p>Anyway, if I did end up getting this wrong, I’d only be -1 for CR. Not a big deal.</p>
<p>I agree with Divy on this one. The answer is blatantly obvious. It’s the sales campaign. The physicists were just there to throw you off</p>
<p>But the physics research does not cause the increase in sales!</p>
<p>That proves my point. He said that it was not a change in circular motion that in know way implies a study ever being done and even if it does that isnt a change we are interested in because he said it didn’t change anything.</p>
<p>How could there be a technological improvement in a YOYO!</p>
<p>All I’ve got so far:(thanks to Galinda and myself)</p>
<p>autonomous
teasing
mired = stuck
phlegmatic
mollifying
urbane and erudite
passage 1 - response, passage 2 - communication (ape passage)
scientific implications
to validate the statement
insufficiently skeptical
superfluous
…and disproportionate
acknowledge that a position seems unreasonable
scant and undistinguished
readily willing to challenge perceived notions (???)
puzzling phenomenon
ideologue
scholarly enthusiasm
clearly wrong, has not been proven wrong yet…???
stories change with social changes
memories he is willing to share
accessible
alternative explanation
present tense used for contrast
inhibit/skew
indefatigable
marketing campaign increased sales
teacher’s eccentric questions
unique that he responds to the teacher
undisclosed self
appreciate / ambivalent
go in there (believes the ape can’t understand “in”)
behavioral evidence is used by both authors
letter between Newton and Leibenitz
Peer editing/Self reflection
Writing skills predate writing classes
the significance of use of language by a particular ape</p>
<p>For the last time, it’s not definitive until we have the exact wording of the question (and the passage). But the question is important here.</p>
<p>Crumma, the question was not, “What caused the increase in sales?” The passage said there were routine fluctuations of yo-yo popularity; it then (seemingly) arbitrarily chooses 1950 to 1951 as a time when there was an increase in yo-yo popularity and then stated that the advances in contained circular motion didn’t cause this increase. I inferred from this that there was an advance in physics during this period (much like there was an advance in paleontology around the same time that the popularity of dinosaurs increased, but this advance was not responsible for the increase). What was the wording to the other plausible answer choice?</p>
<p>Divy, I wasn’t referring to the technological improvement part. That would have to do with engineering or something, and it doesn’t relate to the question.</p>