<p>Is this even legal to discuss specific q's?</p>
<p>for frost, extent and amount were two probable answers</p>
<p>how come no one remembers the frost questions
all we have is
elusive
he was right
competitive
more?</p>
<p>did frost have 2 vocab in context q's
both extent and amount were in his passage?</p>
<p>it as definitely originality, not versatility. it was clearly stated that she was unlike the others by going on the voyages, therefore making her original. it was just explaining the qualities that all good botanists have, does not mean she is versatile</p>
<p>yes. degree was extent.</p>
<p>measure was amount.</p>
<p>defiently versatile talked bout all the diff ways she did things it said few did it, not the 1st, not original</p>
<p>and dgree measure amount extent were those two both in the same passage?</p>
<p>who remebrs the 2nd question about the artists
not the versatile one
the seond question
wat was it
also the 2nd question to the writer short passage one
wat was it?</p>
<p>anny frooooost q's too</p>
<p>is it both authors imply that
machine translators are facing more probs than they imagined or soemthing</p>
<p>no need to be an a******.</p>
<p>btw, the overwhelming majority of all the 99 percentile students here disagree with you. that should tell you something.</p>
<p>evryone on this board says its versatility
it talked about artists then it said mary was very influetnial,s he did this that this that
versatitlity
it never said she did anything orignial
do u remember the other q in that passage?</p>
<p>do u think the scaleing will be lenient for reading, or was it easy?</p>
<p>i guess all the 99 percentile students got it wrong then</p>
<p>ok how was it original this is exactly how the passage went
describes what these type of artists are
introduces MARY or something
says she works doing many different things, many examples, says she is influential etc
closes by saying few artists went on voyages as well
few meaning not original just that not many people did it</p>
<p>and the one with naive
how was she naive if she went on to explain the actual menaing of plants eating rocks wasn;t it just an exagerrated way to introduce science</p>
<p>the botanist one was versatility...while i understand what you're saying about the voyages, other botanists could have voyaged too, in fact, the passage implied that they HAD voyaged before the 20th century, which makes her even LESS original. Then she had all of those qualities, which would clearly make her a versatile person because she had many talents.</p>
<p>And the diffuse thing that went on a while ago, i looked up ALL of the meanings of diffuse, and i hate to say it, but here's one of them:
"characterized by great length or discursiveness in speech or writing; wordy."
i remember it as unaffected as opposed to disaffected, because it had an article in front of it, and i remember "a diffuse" and "an unaffected" ... as in specifically "an" as opposed to the "a" that would have come before "disaffected."</p>
<p>max did you put to introduce scientific or naivity
emotions/motives or to tell events
do u remmember some robert frost answers.
thanks</p>
<p>also was one sentence completion veracztion something began with v
and conundrum another?</p>
<p>wat were some of the other rob frost ones
there was one vocab
elusive
competitive
suspicions were true
theres six more wat were they</p>
<p>no, i don't remember any more frost answers than what was said. The general idea of the passage was that frost projected a character very different from his internal moral corruption. He really wanted to be at the top quite badly. From that, I remember the questions from the rest of the passage being pretty intuitive. I know some of them were really easy to overthink because i did it a lot myself, but I think you'll be pretty good if you picked answers that were directly supported and relatively intuitive. There was nothing really tricky that I remember at least.</p>
<p>I put that it was an unusual way to introduce the scientific thing. I'm relatively sure it was right, because she's not trying to project a naive persona, she's trying to further a scientific argument with a slightly exaggerated thought-provoking statement.</p>
<p>I can't remember on the emotions one, honestly, but I think it was to give some sort of commentary. I definitely remember eliminating motives. I can't really remember what I <em>did</em> put though...sorry!</p>
<p>conundrum was right, I'm really quite sure of it.</p>