<p>@evil</p>
<p>I chose “standardization was needed” on that question.</p>
<p>Im pretty sure the dogs one was docile, not defensive.</p>
<p>@000oo000 Do you mean the sentence completion? If so then the answer is definitely docile. The only other answer that came close was the one that meant big/huge; I can’t remember the word itself. I think the sentence completion answer list is pretty accurate since sentence completion isn’t very subjective.</p>
<p>I still feel like it was defensive. damn. What was the voluptuous question? The policeman was certainly polite and there was contented and melancholy</p>
<p>@Evil, I remember the question but I don’t think ‘standardization’ was part of the answer choice. I know I got that one correct because the other choices were clearly wrong, but I don’t remember two answers having the word ‘standard’ in them.</p>
<p>@000ooo000 Critics of the author call the memoir _______, because of its <em>something</em> images, and luxuriant diction.</p>
<p>yeah, I didn’t put standardizaton either. i put “simplification was impossible” partly because it seemed right and partly because it had similar sounds to “mission impossible” which was cool</p>
<p>Are we sure that the answer was foreshadowing future events and not melancholy because I looked at that one hard and I swear it was melancholy.</p>
<p>the questions on the traffic laws also highlighted the issues that needed to be resolved… also can someone still give me why quackery… forestall is better than humbuggery… elude</p>
<p>humbuggery - Something intended to deceive; a hoax or fraud. 2. A person who claims to be other than what he or she is; an impostor. </p>
<p>nostrum - A medicine, esp. an ineffective one, prepared by an unqualified person.
A pet scheme, esp. one for bringing about some social or political reform or improvement.</p>
<p>elude - Evade or escape from (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skillful or cunning way: “he managed to elude his pursuer”.</p>
<p>humbuggery and elude works I just don’t understand what the difference is with quackery and forestall it seems to be conveying exactly the same ideas. </p>
<p>Quack(ery) - A person who dishonestly claims to have special knowledge in some field, typically in medicine. Medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings.</p>
<p>Forestall - Prevent or obstruct (an anticipated event or action) by taking action ahead of time: “vitamins may forestall many diseases of aging”.
Act in advance of (someone) in order to prevent them from doing something.</p>
<p>Also the question said to “stop aging” so stalling is not necessarily the same thing as escaping from old age?</p>
<p>Do you guys remember the question about that asked, was a green light and red light even the right color?</p>
<p>I put something like it challenged general assumptions</p>
<p>elude is the problem. I was positive. I left my book open during a break and stared at that for 2-3 minutes.</p>
<p>@SAT100</p>
<p>I do remember, though, that there was a question that had an answer choice that said: “standardization was needed” - word-for-word.</p>
<p>^^^i put highlighted issues needed to be resolved for that one. I was stuck between the first three choices which were general statements, assumptions, and issues and I thought that exceptions for generalizations and challenges to assumptions were too similar</p>
<p>did anyone put an answer where it was, underscored the lack of rules or something like that? xD</p>
<p>@000ooo000ooo000ooo00ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo (etc)</p>
<p>Why is elude the problem… the sentence completion said “stop aging” so escaping aging would work no?</p>
<p>There was one about bicycle lanes in the traffic passage. God, I spent a good five minutes over that question, and I changed my answer like three times. Was it that lanes interfere with traffic, bicycles and automobiles should be separated, or something about model of innovation? -_-</p>
<p>@Arctk3</p>
<p>Yeah, I put that one, too.</p>
<p>forestalling works better because the lotion or w/e is preventing aging</p>
<p>For that question it was about an economist saying that the new treatments were being (something) and that they only (something) aging’s superficial affects, without getting to the core of the process.</p>
<p>I don’t think elude would work cause you can’t elude aging’s effects only stop the effects from coming for a bit, IMO i think it was quackery and forestall</p>
<p>Yay for quackery!</p>