<p>that’s one of the few ones that I carefully analyzed and it was a good paraphrase of what the author said. It was measured optimism for sure.</p>
<p>do you remember those sentence completions?</p>
<p>why is the Filipino writer’s journey arduous? I thought he was imprudent, because he was thoughtlessly just writing about fake stuff until he realized he needs to incorporate his true-self in his writing…and also what did the guy from Bach passage learn from Charlotte?</p>
<p>There was Abraham Lincoln SC that was hostility. Then the prosecutor wanted the juror to recant her testimony. And the plants spate discoveries. And the black space woman who was humanitarian and altruism… That’s all I remember really…</p>
<p>hogie, thanks. I just can’t remember that 2 blank one…Oh, here is the second of the 2 Fingerprint passages! Can you remember any other questions?</p>
<p>From the beginning, fingerprinting greatly impressed judges and jurors alike. Experts showed juries blown-up visual representations of the fingerprints themselves, carefully marked to emphasize the points of similarity, inviting jurors to look down at the ridges of their own fingers with new-found respect. The jurors saw, or at least seemed to see, nature speaking directly. Moreover, even in the very first cases, fingerprint experts attempted to distinguish their knowledge from other forms of expert testimony by declaring that they offered not opinion but fact, claiming that their knowledge was special, more certain than other claims of knowledge. But they never established conclusively that all fingerprints are unique or that their technique was infallible even with less-than-perfect fingerprints found at crime scenes.
In all events, just a few years after Jennings was decided, the evidential legitimacy of fingerprints was deeply entrenched, taken for granted as accepted doctrine. Judges were as confident about fingerprinting as was Puddnhead Wilson, a character in an 1894 Mark Twain novella, who believed that Gods finger print language, that voiceless speech and the indelible writing, could provide unquestionable evidence of identity in all cases. Occasionally, Puddnhead Wilson itself was cited as an authority by judges.
Why was fingerprinting accepted so rapidly and with so little skepticism? In part, early 20th-century courts simply werent in the habit of rigorously scrutinizing scientific evidence. Moreover, the judicial habit of relying on precedent created a snowballing effect: Once a number of courts accepted fingerprinting as evidence, later courts simply followed their lead rather than investigating the merits of the technique for themselves. But there are additional explanations for the new techniques easy acceptance. First, fingerprinting and its claims that individual distinctiveness was marked on the tips of the fingers had inherent cultural plausibility. The notion that identity and even character could be read from the physical body was widely shared, both in popular culture and in certain more professional and scientific arenas as well. Berthillonage, for example, the measurement system widely used by police departments across the globe, was based on the notion that if peoples bodies were measured carefully, they inevitably differed one from the other. Similarly, Lombrosion criminology and criminal anthropology, influential around the turn of the century, had as its basic tenet that born criminals differed from normal law-abiding citizens in physically identifiable ways. The widespread belief in natures infinite variety meant that just as every person was different, just as every snowflake was unique, every fingerprint must be distinctive too, if it was only examined in sufficient detail. The idea that upon the tips of fingers were minute patterns, fixed from birth and unique to the carrier, made cultural sense; it fit with the order of things.</p>
<p>Did the relation between passage 1 and 2 about the fingerprints come from the fact that “one finished by stating a hypothesis that was (something) by passage two.” My friend who rocks consistent eight-hundy CRs agreed with me, but I’m not quite so certain.</p>
<p>Also, did any of you guys get answer A for the question on the icebergs about “evidence”. A was lines 7-8 and it loosely had to do with settlement and had the statistic 85%. I noticed that some of you claim that “the deposits” was the correct answer, but if you read the question carefully, the “evidence” had to do with the affect of geography on humans as discovered by scientists. Simply giving examples of geographical features does nothing to provide this type of evidence.</p>
<p>Theirs some pretty good CR answers here: <a href=“https://www.■■■■■■■■.com/questions/367?title=November+SAT+1+Test+Questions+and+Answers%2C+■■■■■■■■.com[/url]”>https://www.■■■■■■■■.com/questions/367?title=November+SAT+1+Test+Questions+and+Answers%2C+■■■■■■■■.com</a></p>
<p>Does anyone remember the question about the 2nd fingerprint passage that asked why the author introduced the second paragraph with the question “Why was fingerprinting accepted so rapidly and with so little skepticism?”? I don’t remember what the answer choices were or what I picked…</p>
<p>To set up examples. That was a typical extended reasoning question.</p>
<p>the writing paragraph improvement answers were D , C, B, C , E, C</p>
<p>Do you guys remember a short passage about this girl kicking some other girl out of her house and there was a question asking why the author uses parenthesis. I also vaguely remember that the girl got a job somewhere.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>did anyone feel like they weren’t bubbling enough A’s?</p></li>
<li><p>in the passage about Bach, there was one question that was asking for what the narrator did in the passage. was it “discovering an obscure new interest” or “facing a particular challenge”?</p></li>
<li><p>Also in the bach passage, for me the last question asked how that woman helped the narrotor the most. I picked that “she explained to him how everything went together.” was this right?</p></li>
<li><p>There was a vocab fill in question where two of the answers were “prim” and “sage.” does anyone remember what the correct answer was to this question and what the question was?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Based on this thread, I’ve pulled the following vocab words from right and wrong answers in both the SC and PBR sections:</p>
<p>disconcerting, disparaging, cursory, incremental, collaborative, pervasive, scrutinized, hostility, impugn, recant, spate, euphemism, prim, brisk, ingenuity, cultivated, castigate, disparity, waning, destitute, arduous, vulnerable, caricature, personification, surrogate, altruism, sanguine, vindication, humanitarian, fortuitous, unalloyed. </p>
<p>Am I missing any?</p>
<p>velove, </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I picked “particular challenge”</p></li>
<li><p>Me too: “how everything fit together”</p></li>
<li><p>Yea I was wondering about that one too. The choices were sage, tame, prim, brisk and something else. I got tame (but I guessed). The verb that signaled the correct answer was “to flag.” So I was lost. lol.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For the vocab fill in wasn’t it brisk? I think as brisk as refreshing and never ceasing to get old like the Lipton Ice Tea drink.</p>
<p>Christiano- I KNOW! that FLAG threw me off, too. I had no idea how that was being used and it was the clue to answering the question. I was worrired that brisk was too easy ( since it said it lasted 3 1/2 hours but you would never know it) and that it was a trick answer…</p>
<p>PSvicki- some of those are experimental, a few are wrong answers, and some I don’t recognize.</p>
<p>For the organic “why did the author characterize icky and chemical”</p>
<p>was it disguise sentiment or exaggerate opinion?</p>
<p>and for the bach “what does author 1 reveal”</p>
<p>was it acute embarrassment, frankly?</p>
<p>i said it was to exaggerate an opinion. i dont remember that bach question</p>
<p>Kieren, I was back and forth between the two answers for the organic. I put to exaggerate a opinion or whatever. Anyone else put this?</p>