<p>The three theories (the scientists and CO2; CO2 and oceans; and marshes) are just theories, not straight-up evidence.</p>
<p>...it's still unreliable without evidence. Even if it happens by chance later on that it's right. </p>
<p>it's like me saying there's a pen in <em>blank</em>'s purse. I've never seen inside of that purpose. You wouldn't trust me because I have no experience/reliability. Even if there turned out to be a pen in the purse, I was still unreliable before because I had not seen the contents of the bag.</p>
<p>These theories were proposed before the 1962 probe death. </p>
<p>Logically, you cannot gain evidence about something without directly investigating it first-hand.</p>
<p>Plus the United States did not venture into space before the 1960's.</p>
<p>my first answer was "obscured the theory blah blah". but i reread the sentence and changed it. the author said, "provided us our FIRST RELIABLE evidence", not "our first evidence" This implies that everything before was not reliable. This is the BEST answer that can be proven by the passage. Makes sense?</p>
<p>lol disregard the word "death"</p>
<p>I think you are confusing some terms. Because it is a scientific article, the ideas thrown around by the scientists were hypotheses, not theories. Theory here isn't used in the colloquial sense; a theory is an explanation something based on scientific laws that hasn't yet been refuted. Hypotheses are general ideas and not scientific evidence. In relationship to a theory, evidence is "[a] general principle independent of the thing to be explained." Evidence is usually an observation. The probe was the first to actually detect the atmosphere. How can the previous hypotheses have a firm basis with little or unreliable evidence about the atmosphere? By actually sending a probe, real evidence is found, thus superseding the previous "evidence," of which there was little or none.</p>
<p>it's 3 CCers against 1...</p>
<p>How could it be "everything before was unreliable"?</p>
<p>First of all: The first two paragraphs surmise about three theories about what Venus is. These theories are NOT evidence; I have never seen a scientific theory become evidence unless it is proven with scientific data.</p>
<p>Second: The 1962 probe directly confirmed that Venus was purely carbon dioxide. This confirms the scientists' theory in the first paragraph.</p>
<p>can someone get back to the romantasized/2 theories debate about venus? I put romantasized.</p>
<p>what was the question?</p>
<p>also, i remember SC about isolated people and -------- landscape. was it desolate?</p>
<p>Another note: Critical reading questions needn't be reasoned out nor do they require outside information. The question asked about what was implied in a particular sentence. The author could have been wrong, uninformed, and written something that completely went against everything in his article (although this wasn't the case here). The sentence said "it was the first 'real' evidence." Going on that, it can be inferred (even more so than inferred as it's directly stated) that the previous evidence was not 'real', and therefore unreliable.</p>
<p>it was like what was the general idea of a certain paragraph (the ones about the dragonflies etc)</p>
<p>I said that it meant venus has been romantasized in history etc.</p>
<p>from dictionary.com
ro·man·tic Audio pronunciation of "romantic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-mntk)
adj.</p>
<ol>
<li>Of, relating to, or characteristic of romance.</li>
<li>Given to thoughts or feelings of romance. See Synonyms at sentimental.</li>
<li>Displaying, expressive of, or conducive to love: a romantic atmosphere.
** 4. Imaginative but impractical; visionary: romantic notions.</li>
<li>Not based on fact; imaginary or fictitious: His memoirs were criticized as a romantic view of the past.**</li>
<li>often Romantic Of or characteristic of romanticism in the arts.</li>
</ol>
<p>Re: Romanticized: I think this is another case of purpose vs. contents, as with "what is the purpose of this paragraph or passage"? Often they'll put stuff that is either in the passage or describes it, but was not the purpose. In the end, the purpose of describing two theories was not to evince a sense of romanticism. Even if it were, it was only in the second part, and I don't think that the first part can be explained to "set up the romanticism in the second half, as was the purpose of the whole paragraph." The purpose of it, even if the second half included romantic elements, was to cite two competing theories.</p>
<p>yea it was desolate</p>
<p>yeah. i put down "cite two theories" cuz there were two stated theories.</p>
<p>what about the qustions about the map (from the passage about preparation for canoe trip)? </p>
<p>first question about map rolling: animate
the first paragraph: note an impression
lewis sometimes can be: whimiscal (i have a feeling this is wrong)
the question about lewis liking hard sports: something about individual?
dry humor</p>
<p>romanticism = speculation. that was what they did, didnt they? It can even be said that it was to set up the question we were earlier arguing about that these were not real evidence and that they were unreliable.</p>
<p>I agree with syn about the "real evidence" question and the "two competing theories." I don't really have my own reasoning to offer, but I've gotten 800 on the verbal section old SAT and new SAT so I've had a pretty good track record ;)</p>
<p>(Score's going down this time, though, I think. SC mistake.)</p>
<p>it wasnt whimsical. i think i put guarded</p>
<p>what about lewis liking challenging sports? i think the answers included individual something, strength, competitive, and i dont remember another.</p>
<p>Well, i got 730 on verbal last time. It wasnt that bad. anyway, juicy angel, what did you put? ill conceived or foolish imitation? I got ill conceived</p>