<p>This is seriously my last question. I really need to know this or i won’t sleep. Was the one with the bees the experimental?</p>
<p>yes it was. i did not see any bees.</p>
<p>@Brotherjames37</p>
<p>Yes. It was experimental. </p>
<p>Sorry to evillavicencio. I can’t seem to remember the answer choices for that question.</p>
<p>guys, for the traffic passage, i saw some posts saying that “the people resented the new rules” but im pretty sure that answer choice also referred to the fact that the people resented them because they favored pedestrians, which was not mentioned in the passage…did anyone put they questioned the legality of the rules?</p>
<p>OMG. Thank you. I feel better. Ready to answer some question, and quite possibly screw everything up :)</p>
<p>Questioned the legality is a no. If the passage never specifically mentioned laws and regulation as a response from the drivers, then it cannot be an answer.</p>
<p>have you guys seen the passage about the woman who was originally from South Carolina and talked about her mom or something?</p>
<p>@somnusc do you remember the other options</p>
<p>Though they did mention pedestrians as “walkers” in brief i don’t think people resented the new rules, myself personally I put down like they challenged the new rules since it would have forced them to cooperate with each other sharing the same traffic space and I remembered someone in the paragraph about when that dude went over to other parts of the word as a social and traffic engineer to teach people about the new traffic laws or whatever it said that he usually taught them against their will xD . my two cents is that they challenged the new rules rather than resented them.</p>
<p>The woman from South Caroline is probably experimental</p>
<p>You guys thin -6/7 is above 700? Thats all i need lol</p>
<p>it was like…challenged the legality of rules (now in retrospect, “legality” sounds really suspicious and wrong)
resented the rules because they favored the pedestrians ( which i think is also wrong because the added reference of pedestrians)
confused by the new rules ( i think)</p>
<p>it was resented the limitations set by the rules.
the other answer was opposed the rules because they favored pedestrians. which was wrong</p>
<p>I’m still sticking with evasive. They thought the speaker was evasive because he avoided staying on a single topic… Erudition means smart, makes little sense.</p>
<p>so for the question about rational vs. heartless detachment, are you sure it’s rational?
I thought in cold blood meant an outside observer without emotional attachment.</p>
<p>why is confused wrong I’m pretty sure that that’s what I put. wasn’t there a lot of evidence in the passage saying they were confused</p>
<p>It was instructive and informative and it was resented; although there was not a lot of support for the answer (resentful), through POE, it was ostensibly the correct answer.</p>
<p>Gonna agree with jimipod here. I just remembered what I put and it was the methodology, and how passage 2 shows the reservations. The author of passage 2 spent most of his passage describing what good a photographer could do. He also wrote “Photographers had to choose what was right” or something very close to that. He was discussing some limitations that come with the great power of photography.</p>
<p>Cold-blooded is definitely rational.</p>
<p>@000ooo000ooo </p>
<p>how did you eliminate confusion? i thought that was better supported by the text; i couldn’t really find anything about resenting because of limitations</p>
<p>@ chachaseeds
yeah i put evasive for that one. </p>
<p>and what is the answer to the one about the indian singer? was it awe or pride? i thought it was pride. awe makes it seem a bit fearful and it doesn’t fit as well. i thought they were proud of him and respectful.</p>
<p>@MichaelGScarn</p>
<p>Because it said that he changed the mind of people many of which did not want to change their minds or something along those lines. The text implied that the people were more forceful. </p>
<p>@squirrel242
It was awe. You don’t view someone with pride.</p>
<p>@SAT100
I concur. I was definitely rational and methodology.</p>