<p>Exactly. “Insufficiently skeptical” is not “skeptical”; it’s “not skeptical enough.” The author of Passage 1 should question human uniqueness more.</p>
<p>What was the question for which the answer was both authors used behavioral science? Did it have scientists’ viewpoints as an answer choice?</p>
<p>The other option that sounded plausible for alternative explanation was “suggest an unjustified bias”.</p>
<p>I remember reading something in the first few pages of this thread about the last question of the Kenzi passages. I honestly don’t think the answer was “scientific implications” because the author actually said something along the lines of “apes think like humans” and there was an answer choice that said something like “other nonhuman primates could have Kenzi’s ability”.</p>
<p>Anyone with me on this one?</p>
<p>@hevydevy You are preaching to the choir, haha. I still am not buying the “scientific implications” answer. It has to be the answer choice you’re pointing out.</p>
<p>EDIT: I’m also clinging to this answer choice by the tips of my fingernails because I’m trying to visualize an 800 on this test.</p>
<p>@airplanes@hevydevy:</p>
<p>I completely agree with you guys. I didn’t even think twice about that question…</p>
<p>^^ The answer was almost certainly scientific implications. The widely held belief in science that human brains are unique (in that they can process grammar) is challenged by the researcher’s study on Kanzi. Thus, the idea that Kanzi (and other apes) may process grammar in the same way that humans do does, in fact, have significant scientific implications. If true, it would challenge a view that permeates scientific thought. Also, it doesn’t matter that <em>you</em> thought it was insignificant, just that she thought it was. And from her passage, it was quite clear she did.</p>
<p>Also, was it “useful but unnecessary” or “value peer edits” for the creative writing passages?</p>
<p>^Yea</p>
<p>The author made a point that the discovery could be larger than itself, as in, it’s not the fact that other primates may talk, but the fact that the whole scientific thought of humans and animals might be revisualized.</p>
<p>And what do you guys think 3 questions incorrect will get me?</p>
<p>“VALUE PEER EDITS” or “USeFUl but UNECESSARY?”</p>
<p>@Echelon: “useful but not essential.” Your score should fall around 760-780.</p>
<p>^alright, thanks</p>
<p>guys, do you think the curve will be good for critical reading and writing? i didn’t think writing was that hard, possibly a max. of 5 wrong. I;m always bad at crit-reading, so the curve needs to be in my favor.</p>
<p>Hi guys!!Thanks for posting so many useful information here!! But I do have two question:
- what was the question for “phlegmatic”???
- anyone remembers there was another choice for “alternative explanation”. I remember the author is actually trying to deny something, so I put something like to reject a possible theory…</p>
<p>HELP NEEDED!!!
Thanks again!!!</p>
<p>Also I really can’t agree “scientific implication” since I remember the author is trying to make such a point: it will be a revolution if scientists find out apes are very similar to human beings. so i chose a choice which maybe includes “revolution”. </p>
<p>In addition, can someone tell me what were other answers to the question for “scholarly enthusiasm”???</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>ok so today i went to school
I asked all the smart kids
they all put “unflattered” over “objective”</p>
<p>…I am screwed.</p>
<p>I didn’t particularly enjoy the CR sections…</p>
<p>There was a CR section with “venality” as the answer to one of the vocab questions. Was that real or experimental? I haven’t seen anyone talking about it.</p>
<p>Which question was the answer “unflattered?”</p>