<p>You're both wrong, it's the most obvious answer that doesn't have any doubt to it... that both cited large mammals as a source of food. Both explicitly referred to this, very clearly in the first and indirectly in the second.</p>
<p>but it didnt say what did the passages agree on, it said on which statement would the authors of the passage probably agree. in addition, i dont really recall anything about the ice bridge in passage two...either way...i'm pretty sure about my answer, not only because i think the passages supported it, but because usually those questions discuss a broader topic as opposed to a specific detail. i thought the entire point of those pieces was to show that its almost impossible to figure out exactly when something in the past happened - in addition, that exact notion was stated in at least passage one. that was the theme, in my opinion. of both pieces.</p>
<p>no they didnt. they indirectly refered to it in the first (saying they might have eaten mammals) and very improbably/indirectly/not at all in the second (they said something about the large mammals not being able to climb an ice shelf, which means they would not have lived at that location). trust me, that one was most definitely wrong.</p>
<p>No, it said the mastodons could not climb over it, and therefore the Clovis could not have passed through the ice bridge either for lack of food.</p>
<p>blah, i cant think right now. whatever. maybe you're right. why was this cr so hard?</p>
<p>Chone,</p>
<p>Actually, the point of both passages was to show that the land travel theory may be untenable. The second passage clearly disputed the land travel theory and promoted the sea travel theory instead. The first passage started by citing the current theory of land travel, but later gives evidence of an earlier arrival of humans, thus implicitly challenging the land travel theory. The common main idea of the two passages was not so much about the dates or the uncertainty about them.</p>
<p>Beanies520,</p>
<p>You're dead wrong on your answer, I'm sorry to say. Passage 2 explicitly mentioned that the first settlers travelled by sea and got their food from the sea, not from animals such as mastodons!</p>
<p>damn. i'm starting to think you might be right. you've been nailing everything godot...i'm still uncertain of a few of these...but my cr score is looking worse and worse.</p>
<p>Chone,</p>
<p>Don't worry. I have a feeling that the CR curve will be generous. Although the Sentence Completion questions were relatively easy, it seems that the Reading Comprehension questions were a little challenging/tricky. I still think they wrote a few questions badly ("benign monster," "drive," "informative" vs. "argumentative"). I'm just frankly shocked at how sloppily written some of the questions were. It's as if the ETS test writers didn't bother to edit the questions after they first wrote them.</p>
<p>what was the benign monster answer?</p>
<p>Although many people seem to be saying that the benign monster one was "the industrial process of manufacturing" i still think that it is "to gain sympathy for the workers" After all, "benign monster" literally means "kind/benevolent monster", so it would seem to indicate sympathy....</p>
<p>benign can also mean helpful, which the industrial process would be for the shopkeepers</p>
<p>benign means harmless.</p>
<p>...i think i got that one wrong, because i put it as he was criticizing something because the passage as a whole had a negative connotation...gahh i hate the CR section!</p>