<p>I think stopping mid sentence was because Arnold had an effect on Jack’s self image. Don’t remember though.</p>
<p>yeah inexperienced</p>
<p>self-creation: wasn’t published and was unstable</p>
<p>The lions mane with elevation and climate is one hundred percent WEAKENS aargument. Its obvious that when you spend the majority of ur article talking bout how they tried to prove their hypothesis about how climate and elevation were the ONLY factors, when u mention another factor in addition to it it weakens ur stance. NOt to mention taht any scientific study taht did that would be wekeaned by such a statement.</p>
<p>Those of you who are argueing just dont want admit that you were wrong. Its clear that the hormones do not help. Its clear that they take away from the central theme/point of the essay and thus they weaken the argment…not to mention it was randomly mentioned at the end and had no relationship with the rest of the essay</p>
<p>kmtt: the one where he stopped mid sentence was like, er he imagined being 11 years old, then 12, then he just stopped talking er something like that anyway, i put inexperienced</p>
<p>geeez, titan. i still think it has no effect. because it was just referring to the one line in the passage. not necessarily the whole passage. and i think it said that hormones were an additional factor, along with the climate and elevation.</p>
<p>for some reason i thought the question about stopping mid sentence asked which choice ISNT a reason why he stopped mid sentence. i might be thinking about a different question though.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it said which one was the reason, but maybe I misread it. I still am going to stick with no effect, idk, it didn’t really seem like it would weaken his argument that climate/temp affect.</p>
<p>haha i was just a little tired of people talkin about that question…readng test was overall not that badd…which one was the first passage, i cant remember? but i dont think it took me any longer than the others…</p>
<p>a question about the last passage: were the answers mostly c? </p>
<p>I’m wondering because I ran out of time on the final passage and ended up bubbling c for the remaining 6 or so…</p>
<p>It has to be weakens the argument. </p>
<p>The question was something like: “Does the fact that hormones may have an effect of manes weaken/strengthen/have no effect on the statement in lines 7-9?”</p>
<p>Lines 7-9 were the conclusion that elevation and climate were the factors that most changed mane length.</p>
<p>Hormones clearly throw off this conclusion, as it proves there may be another significant reason for the shortness of the manes, thus the conclusion that it relies on climate/elevation is weakened.</p>
<p>I found the lion article! Hehe
[Shaggy</a>, or Not So Shaggy: A New Look at Lions’ Manes - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/09/science/shaggy-or-not-so-shaggy-a-new-look-at-lions-manes.html]Shaggy”>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/09/science/shaggy-or-not-so-shaggy-a-new-look-at-lions-manes.html)</p>
<p>and I still think the answer is no effect.</p>
<p>Hahaaha. I completely agree. I started working on the first passage until question 2. It was just badly written in my point of view. I went straight over to 2,3,4 and then came back with almost no time to finish.</p>
<p>Otherwise, the other 3 were generous.</p>
<p>i think it strengthens it. the thesis of the passage was taht it is possible for lions to have manes of different length. the focus was not on climate or environment. the focus was on teh general fact that lions can have short manes as well as long manes…and climate, environment, AND, hormons…were reasons given to prove that this was possible. this part says it: </p>
<p>In addition to climate and elevation, hormones may also play a role in mane development. There are some cases of maneless nomadic lions living on high plateaus that do not defend territories, Mr. Gnoske said, and the reason seems to be low levels of male hormones, like testosterone.</p>
<p>‘‘There are several documented cases where fully maned lions lost their manes as a result of direct castration or severe injuries to their pelvic region from fights with other lions,’’ he added.</p>
<p>But not having a mane may actually be a benefit. Recent studies show that in some primate species, like orangutans and mandrills, adult males may actually inhibit development of their masculine physical characteristics – through suppression of testosterone – to be less conspicuous and escape conflict with rival males.</p>
<p>so i think it STRENGTHENED the thesis</p>
<p>@kmtt - good find, that clears the debate up.</p>
<p>"In addition to climate and elevation, hormones may also play a role in mane development. "</p>
<ul>
<li>There is no contradiction whatsoever.</li>
</ul>
<p>@jetskidd46
We are in the same boat, but it looks like we are incorrect. It strengthened the THESIS for sure, but it had no relevance to the conclusion in lines (7-9) “The size of a lion’s mane, the researchers concluded, appears to be a function of elevation and climate.” </p>
<p>I also read the question as thesis, but apparently it specifically referenced lines 7-9. If it did, the answer would surely be no effect.</p>
<p>what was the first question for the first passage?
was the narrator unidentified who wrote out jack’s thoughts?</p>
<p>anyone wanna answer my “were the answers on the last passage mostly c?” question? =(</p>
<p>@icyfresh505</p>
<p>That was the question and that was the correct answer.</p>
<p>After hearing Arnold’s stories, Jack thought he was childish right? Like the activities he used to do, etc…</p>
<p>@Daps</p>
<p>That’s what I put, but I cannot say I read that passage thoroughly.</p>
<p>@thequestionmark</p>
<p>alright cool
the first passage was a bust!</p>
<p>Hopefully we’re right questionmark, there were like 3 questions that had to do w/ him being childish/inexperienced/etc lol. So far i think i have none wrong IF no effect is correct</p>