<p>what was the other part of the critical answer?</p>
<p>I'm not sure why you guys are still arguing about the Asian passage. Lets see, hmm.
The answer is systematic/thorough.</p>
<p>Choice 1) innocent/amusing</p>
<p>How is he being succint and passionate like sports announcer translate into innocent and amusing? </p>
<p>Choice 2) systematic/thorough</p>
<p>Okay, some of you guys are arguing that because it said succinct, it can't be thorough. Well, the definition of succinct is</p>
<p>characterized by conciseness or verbal brevity</p>
<p>It means that you are being economical with your words. You can be thorough while being succinct. It does not mean that you cover less information; you can convey the same amount of knowledge with fewer words.</p>
<p>Also, right after that was a list. A list of father's category on vital signs of Asians: intelligence, facial, so-on. This list covered at least 4 things and it ended with etc. You guys don't think its systematic that he covers these stuff every time? And isn't this being quite thorough? </p>
<p>Lastly, the next sentence started with "The most irksome thing that he did...was COMPREHENSIVE..so-on." This implies that the idea that preceded is also irksome(irritating) to some extent. So how could it be amusing(pleasantly entertaining or diverting) to the author? In addition, the word comprehensive also implies that he is being thorough.</p>
<p>I hope this discussion ends here... and damn I missed two questions on that test. shoot. I hope the curve is generous... highly unlikely.</p>
<p>P.S. Definitions are from [url=<a href="http://www.dictionary.com%5DDictionary.com%5B/url">http://www.dictionary.com]Dictionary.com[/url</a>].</p>
<p>Kyun, do you remember if you put understandable or inevitable for the wrath question, thx. Its also systematic because they said "vital signs" in the question.</p>
<p>I put understandable.. Simply because inevitable would mean that there would be exception and everyone would have to agree with the scholars. It felt too extreme for me. The author, however, certainly expressed that he agreed with scholars, saying that Newman(ithink?) was wrong in his translation. So yeah... but I'm not 100% sure.</p>
<p>Anyone remember, for Chimpanzee passage, something about passage 2 suggesting "danger" in passage 2?
What was the answer? Someone answered this question.. but I don't even remember that choice being there.. so if you are that person, could you elaborate on it more? Thank you.</p>
<p>Do you know what the reason they gve ws for understandable? lol, I thought understandable and the one below it were extreme since the tone of the uthor seemed more pro erza then pro critics.</p>
<p>Oops I meant NO EXCEPTION if put inevitable.</p>
<p>For the passage, he started by saying how critics denounced that dude. The dude, however, further enraged them by saying his thing is as literal (in terms of capturing the essence) as it gets. The author then said, in exact words, somewhere along "of couse not." The author explained how the literal translation often became misleading and etc. So this was the evidence that the author agreed with the scholars, not with the dude.</p>
<p>Choice 1) innocent/amusing</p>
<p>How is he being succint and passionate like sports announcer translate into innocent and amusing?</p>
<p>(Well I agree with this. How can a sports announcer be innocent? He may be amusing but nowhere in real life is a sports announcer innocent, and its common sense)</p>
<p>Choice 2) systematic/thorough</p>
<p>(Systematic and Thorough is the better choice. Systematic means basically step by step in terms of a system. Also Thorough means very indepth. Both these words fit the definition of a "sports announcer" because when a sports announcer is announcing a soccer game, he/she is thoroughly describing what is happening step by step, therefore the answer was "Systematic and Thorough."</p>
<p>I'll apologize in advance if I'm being repetitive, but I swear I've looked through the last few pages and no one's brought this up: </p>
<p>The question with Charles Dickens and literary critic lady (ahk! forgot her name!): was the answer to the question, "What purpose does mentioning Dickens serve?" something like, "Dickens argued on the same topic as the lady, but recieved less criticism" OR "Dickens argued more boldly than (other lady)"?</p>
<p>jenny, I put Dickens argued more boldly than the other lady because nowhere in the passage did it say that Dickens recieved less criticism, if i remember.</p>
<p>Dickens argued more boldly, undoubtedly. It never said he received less criticism ANYWHERE in that passage.</p>
<p>someone needs to post a list of consolidated answers :p</p>
<p>Most of this was done by spikypufferfish so he gets the credit. I just formatted and added a few. THIS IS JUST A START, EVERYONE PLEASE ADD WHATEVER YOU THINK OF.</p>
<p>SENTENCE COMPLETIONS</p>
<p>1)the female writer was economical
2)the boxer was strident
3)convoluted
4)epidiomologists- contain and check
5)advances set off by periods of- regression
6)demographics
7)immoral/transgression
8)polemical
9)arrest
10)nonchalant/perfunctory
11)halt/cease</p>
<p>MONKEY DUAL PASSAGES</p>
<p>1)human impulses
2)danger because kid shouldn’t jump to conclusions without research</p>
<p>FOOL/PRAGMATIST/CARLYLE</p>
<p>1)Shocked at the revelation
2)Carlyle- Was someone every educated person should know
3)2To forget!- surprised disbelief
4)Realize- conceive
5)Fool- acquire knowledge indiscriminately
6)Friend’s way of thinking- pragmatic</p>
<p>BIOLUMINESCENCE PASSAGE</p>
<p>1)Not many people given opportunity- granted
2)Ghosting along- moved silently or labored motion? Definition (verb):
(of a sailing vessel) to move when there is no perceptible wind.<br>
3)Copepods’ transparency is used to suggest that they didn’t like to eat algae and glow
4)Noclitus was odd- doesn’t follow pattern of animals adjusting
5)Malactose with red light was different because- only malactoses could see
6)Submarine on surface of water- crab out of its shell</p>
<p>(HIDEOUS) POEM TRANSLATION PASSAGES</p>
<p>1)Primary purpose of passages- historical works into modern language
2)What would the author of passage two be concerned with passage one: did he preserve the original essence of the work?
3)developmental changes in English language
4)who would passage two agree with- European translators would agree with newman
5)No language at all- “il fait froid” to it makes cold
6)European translators consider crime- revering the author too much, NOT read in original language
7)Author two used examples of weird words-show how pound wasn’t accurate in his assertion
8)Wrath of scholars- inevitable or understandable : I believe we’re still debating</p>
<p>SOCIETAL COMMENTARY SHORT PASSAGE</p>
<p>1) Dickens was bolder than the critic woman</p>
<p>ASIAN PASSAGE</p>
<p>1)Passage was about personal account
2)Real Asian- authentic
3)When they saw asian on TV- excitement
4)List of vital signs of Asian- (thorough and systematic) or (innocent and amusing)
5)She found their comparisons- irritating
6)The Asian actresses- unlikely to fool the panelists
7)Somehow they all picked me- unsurprised at the panelist’s decision
8)Pre-videocassette- technological innovation made experience more common</p>
<p>Guys, add on to this list. Hopefully, by the end, we'll have everything. We have 42/67 so far. I forgot one of the short passages I think.</p>
<p>"-Wrath of scholars- inevitable or understandable : I believe were still debating"</p>
<p>I put inevitable. He was provoking them and he basically knew it would happen but didn't care.. it's inevitable that they'd show wrath..</p>
<p>I put "understandable" for the wrath of the scholars. I think inevitable is too strong a word choice.</p>
<p>I also think there is a third option for the Asian parents/vital sign question: critical. The passage emphasized the negative judgment the parents exhibited and how they were critical of her, saying she should be Ms. World; I think that fits very well.</p>
<p>Oh, and did anybody else put pragmatic down twice? I assume the second time I was wrong, but I don't remember what the context was.</p>
<p>So far I'm at -1 for sure, I got the "economic writing style" question wrong. I hope -2 will keep me at an 800? Because this was a killer CR section.</p>
<p>Inevitable seems extreme. Wrath isn't really inevitable because there's reason to it. It's understandable because there's reason to it.</p>
<p>I'm at -1 for saying that the transparency of the copepods was to show their abilities as predator and -2 if thorough and systematic was correct for the Asian passage.</p>
<p>let's both hope -2 = 800, remember me!</p>
<p>Yes definitely!! (Maybe even -3 = 800 if that's not too brash a thought!)</p>
<p>Are you sure about that one Dickens question? I vaguely remember the passage mentioning something about him being not as criticized or whatever. Then again, I'm pretty frazzled today.</p>
<p>I got somewhere between -1 and -3 so far, so that would be cool^^</p>
<p>can anyone remember what 11)halt/cease this sentence completion about? city council?</p>