<p>Does anyone remmeber for last 4 questions of the apes passage if the answers to any of them was C?
Guessed on last 4</p>
<p>@ GoodJob, I don’t see how insufficient skepticism works for that question. The last lines of passage two talked about how scientists disregard evidence of apes and other animals understanding language because they did not want to admit that apes had an ability that belonged “uniquely to humans”. Wouldn’t it make sense that the author of passage two would think that the author of passage one was “reluctant”? </p>
<p>Also, some people are saying subversive was the answer, and not superfluous, to the Greek one. I actually think either can work, but I put superfluous because it talked about “little overt need” for the alphabet…</p>
<p>SO overalll. How was the CR sections? Hard, Easy or Okay.</p>
<p>The first paragraph never said it was useful. He just said that other stuff works. One of these things being peers. It’s the peers guys, I’m pretty confident. Also the idealistic question was polymath. He raised his hand to show he tried to answer eccentric questions (I think that’s an answer to two separate ones)…he didn’t get persuaded one way or another, I took it that he was thinking back to how similar he was to his daughter because he looked at things at an alternate and complete angle. Just like the eccentric teacher and the thoroughly inquisitive daughter.</p>
<p>Which section was the mars and venus passage in?</p>
<p>@feedback411</p>
<p>Definitely ‘superfluous’, ‘subversive’ cannot work. Greek oral tradition was already strong, eliminating the need for written language and making it superfluous. Subversive would suggest undermining or taking over</p>
<p>@lilmelon
I thought it was easy but after reading this thread I’m not so sure anymore</p>
<p>@800, he specifically stated that NOTHING necessary in the learning of creative writing implied a creative writing degree. He basically said they were useless. </p>
<p>And can we please go over the question that asked about the last paragraph of the ape passage. Answers were: Major scientific implications; abilities of other apes; etc</p>
<p>I’m giving my thought here.</p>
<p>Superfluous is, in my eyes, a clear answer.</p>
<p>Insufficient skepticism suggests that scientists are too conventional when it comes to thought of “humans being the superior beings”. She wrote that they didn’t want to accept that apes could be just as competent. Also, I don’t think the scientist like the one in the first passage was optimistic at all. If he was “reluctant”, that would mean that there was some sort of pressure holding him back from admiring the apes. I didn’t think a pressure was there, so I assumed that he simply liked the idea of humans being the most capable animals on the planet.</p>
<p>@ GoodJob, I don’t see how insufficient skepticism works for that question. The last lines of passage two talked about how scientists disregard evidence of apes and other animals understanding language because they did not want to admit that apes had an ability that belonged “uniquely to humans”. Wouldn’t it make sense that the author of passage two would think that the author of passage one was “reluctant”? </p>
<p>I agree with this; does anyone see my point that stating “insufficient” sounds kind of bold? The tone of the last paragraph for Passage 2 was more reflective than accusatory. “Insufficient” sounds like an attack. I don’t think Passage 2 was harshly critizizing the scientists so much as saying, “It would be nicer if they…” “Insufficient” sounds kind of blatantly disrespectful.</p>
<p>No. No where does he said it will be helpful because it gives a degree. He simply said that those useful tips that he spoke of were helpful and did not give a degree. If anything that’s slightly downplaying the role of classes. He was very objective with the classes.</p>
<p>@Divy1234</p>
<p>It was implied in the first paragraph that writing classes could be useful in becoming a good writer, but not necessary because others in the past became good writers before classes were invented.</p>
<p>Either way, ‘peers’ are not stated as a valuable benefit of writing classes in the first passage, only as a way to become a good writer without classes.</p>
<p>I’m pretty confident in that answer, and I usually score 800 in CR.</p>
<p>Yeah i’m taking mine in November… I hope the CR questions won’t be hard by then because that’s the section where i need to IMPROVE THE MOST. =/</p>
<p>@ Echelon11 Major scientific implications.</p>
<p>He specifically states that the people who were continually debunking his theory about communications were probably doing so because humans had always been thought of as intellectually superior, and this would refute that.</p>
<p>And also, How do you guys know how to pick the right and the best answer for the CR reading?</p>
<p>Divy 1234, agree with you completely</p>
<p>@GoodJobBro</p>
<p>The author of Passage 1 states that she doesn’t want to seem overly GLUM about the ape’s progress but she can’t HELP but point out what she calls, the obvious. So she’s trying to avoid an OVERALL NEGATIVE TONE, but she can’t help but lay down the facts as they exist.<br>
And I think “reluctantly optimistic” is the right fit. Optimistic doesn’t mean she’s revved-up. It’s a lot calmer than that. Reluctant is also a pretty mellow word, it doesn’t mean you’re totally calling doing something out of the question, but you’re not 100% sure of what you want to do.</p>
<p>WHICH SECTION WAS THE MARS AND VENUS passage in?</p>
<p>What do people think about the question with the ‘peers’ answer? I said “drawing from personal experience”</p>
<p>But with the ape passage did anybody get “similar abilities in other apes” or did you get “major scientific implications?”</p>