<p>@chachaseeds The sentence said that the listeners misinterpreted his adroit skills as a speaker as a sign of erudition.</p>
<p>Oh yeah I remember!!!</p>
<p>IT WAS METHODOLOGY AND THEN THE SECOND PASSAGE HAD SOME RESERVATIONS/CAUTIONS BECAUSE THEY SAID IT COULD BE MISUSED AND NOT ALWAYS SHOW THE TRUTH</p>
<p>All caps for the win and philosophy didn’t work because at the end of passage 1 it said that the writer went out and used the photographs.</p>
<p>The second part for the methodology one was with some reservations or something right?</p>
<p>Oh man. I’m freaking out here. I answered every critical reading question, besides just one section which I bombed. All I remember is that the first passage was talking about bees. And the thrid passage was red. hard with some hard vocabulary.</p>
<p>if it’s true that the answer choice said “passage 2 employs”, then here’s the thing:
even IF passage 1 talks about a methodology, passage two does not employ it. the CHARACTER in passage two might employ it, but the passage itself does not.</p>
<p>if that’s not what the answer choice said…i still go for philosophy. philosophy is the study of a theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. passage 1 talked about the “theory” that good photography comes from being in touch with your subjects. that is a philosophy. passage 2 discusses in detail how the author grew as a photographer by exploring that philosophy.</p>
<p>its erudite</p>
<p>i thikn it said erudition which essentially means intelligence</p>
<p>basically the sentence is saying like “the listeners saw that he spoke well, and the less experienced ones assumed that this good speaking means he was smart”</p>
<p>@evillavicencio </p>
<p>It’s not; i lied haha I think that “employs” was an option for another question. 000ooo000ooo is correct</p>
<p>aw, boo.
whatever.
i’m not changing my mind</p>
<p>00ooo000o0o0o00:
"Oh yeah I remember!!!</p>
<p>IT WAS METHODOLOGY AND THEN THE SECOND PASSAGE HAD SOME RESERVATIONS/CAUTIONS BECAUSE THEY SAID IT COULD BE MISUSED AND NOT ALWAYS SHOW THE TRUTH</p>
<p>All caps for the win and philosophy didn’t work because at the end of passage 1 it said that the writer went out and used the photographs.</p>
<p>The second part for the methodology one was with some reservations or something right?"</p>
<p>YESSSS!! SOMEONE WHO REMEMBERSSSS!!!</p>
<p>jimmypod, since you seem to know everything…what were the two questions about the farm??? i remember the answer to one of them was trading with nearby peoples, but what was the other question and what was its answer?</p>
<p>Oh great, got that definitely wrong then 
I don’t remember getting cathartic for any of my answers? What was the question for it?</p>
<p>also would you mind explaining why the answer to that traffic question was “standardization was needed” and not “simplicity was impossible”</p>
<p>for that standardization one, i didnt even put one of those two. I forgot the other answers</p>
<p>“standardization was needed” and not “simplicity was impossible” Because “impossible” makes it to extreme, we don’t know that. Saying that order is neccessary is more correct.</p>
<p>@ my brotha james
there were a couple questions that had standardization/standards in their answer, so it’s possible they’re getting muddled in your head. no worries.</p>
<p>What about the biological clock question describing the passage? People are saying instructive and objective. How in any way was that passage instructive? </p>
<p>I put “inquisitive and concerned.” The entire passage was basically framed as a question: “are biological clocks legitimate/are they autonomous or defined by the environment?”</p>
<p>why concerned?</p>
<p>the thing is, right after the sentences that the question indicated was something along the lines of “what we take for granted today took years of work and focus” and went on about that same idea, basically saying that although our traffic is more organized now, back then, it was impossible for it to be so simple</p>
<p>@brotherjames
I just think it fits better than instructive, which is probably shoddy reasoning. But the fact that he described the various experiments testing it seems to point to a concern on the part of the author. I know it’s faulty.</p>
<p>Why instructive?</p>
<p>because it was much more non-emotional. It was more him stating what was happening, than him voicing his opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I was deciding between those two for like 4 minutes. I just didn’t see concern.</p>
<p>dictionary.com</p>
<p>Instructive: serving to inform; conveying knowledge or information; enlightening. </p>
<p>was it not informative</p>