<p>The article cannot give confirmation. Just because the word fanaticism is in the article doesn’t mean that it is the answer. This is a vocabulary problem, and I believe it wasn’t about penguins. Look up the word atavism and put it in context of the question. Atavism is definitely the answer.</p>
<p>It was about penguins. The exact sentence is in the article.</p>
<p>Literally:
“Penguins show a site of fidelity that borders on ________ : on the 54,361 birds that Boersma’s team has banded over the years, only 149 were later recorded at a colony other than the one in which they were born.”</p>
<p>@Smargent not being rude (im really not) but those questions have been answered countless times bro. prince is recluse and fanaticism is penguins .if you have a question try looking through the past pages (from like 70 on) for an answer homie</p>
<p>Almost positive it’s fanaticism there’s no way it could be atavism… And two people who scored 2400 and 2370 on their SATs from my school both agreed</p>
<p>I also put atavism. I was able to eliminate the rest because they made absolutely no sense to me. If something doesn’t make sense to me or doesn’t fit in the blank, its not right. That’s just my opinion, I don’t know if I’m right. </p>
<p>Everyone acts like they think their answer is absolutely right just because everyone else got it or because they have the brains. Not to be rude, but who knows what the answer is! For all we know, they could be pulling a trick on us on some of the questions. Don’t be so quick to assume you are right, especially without proper evidence. </p>
<p>It is saying that the majority of the penguins stayed in their colony due to extreme loyalty. Extreme loyalty people.Thus, the answer is absolutely fanaticism. </p>
<p>If you look up the definitely for atavism it says to “revert back to ancestral type”. It doesn’t state that the penguins went their own separate ways after banding together. Atavism also deals with evolutionary stuff so that doesn’t make sense. This is what I’m interpreting.</p>
<p>@jdschooled5 Like he said, lets not argue answers. that’s not what a thread is for. just giving your answer is good enough. stop arguing with other people </p>
<p>I definitely think atavism was the answer. It is no way fanaticism. Just because they stay in the same area does not automatically mean they were loyal to the area. They might had stayed in the same area due to lack of strength, etc.</p>
<p>I hate collegeboard </p>
<p>They screw us over into retaking useless tests </p>
<p>Can we all just agree that the PSAT, SAT, ACT, or any other stupid standardized test are all rigged and terrible factors to use in college admissions?</p>
<p>I disagree @Dorfdude8888 the SAT presents your ability to think critically, a skill needed to be successful in life</p>
<p>We can agree but apparently our futures are largely dependent on the most bs test of all time </p>
<p>I also want to settle the “Triangle Question debate”. Is choice I always true, or is it only choice III?</p>
<p>No it doesn’t teach you to think critically. The test is in one format each time so everything pretty much isn’t new </p>
<p>@agupte chill out lil homie. your not going to get anything out of arguing with someone against your answer… your either right or wrong bro. and youll find that out in December </p>
<p>I still think III only is correct for the triangle question. Not I and III.</p>
<p>A is definitely going to be the biggest angle.</p>
<p>Afaik there are only 13 or 14 ways that angle B could be bigger than angle C (50 degrees).</p>
<p>It was I and III. Chrysanthemum14, you act like you know everything…</p>
<p>I think that the answer to the penguin question (for the writing) is no error. I looked it up on Google and it turns out that something can evolve in the absence of something else- therefore, I think it’s grammatically correct, but I might be wrong. Here’s an article that specifically uses that phrasing: <a href=“Oxygen evolution in the absence of the 33-kilodalton manganese-stabilizing protein - PubMed”>Oxygen evolution in the absence of the 33-kilodalton manganese-stabilizing protein - PubMed;
<p>@aznboi4981 </p>
<p>I never implied that…</p>
<p>When there is proof to back it up, it’s more than likely right.</p>
<p>We were all divided in this thread between I and III vs III only. I only stated my stance. We’ll find out sooner or later.</p>