<p>@ 000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo</p>
<p>The neighbors one was “shared land between neighbors,” not traded.</p>
<p>^^ so consensus is entertaining historical fact?
000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo000ooo</p>
<p>■■■■■’d</p>
<p>It’s a landmark because cars and traffic regulation were unprecedented for the time.</p>
<p>@ AngelofSpeed</p>
<p>Yep, there was nothing supporting the landmarkness of it so therefore had to be entertaining.
IMO the traffic section was super easy, I don’t think I missed a single question.
Overall Critical Reading probably like -4/-7, really easy for me.
Kind of ironic, the blurb for my essay came from an author that we read in AP Lang
And a author mentioned in the vocab “John Updike” was in my poety for AP LANG yesterday. lol</p>
<p>I’m feeling bullied. Just because I am a URM and have a different name then you guys doesn’t mean you have to make fun of me…
</p>
<p>Lololol</p>
<p>PROBLEMPROBLEMPROBLEM
Uh oh. I think my memory had deceived me before. </p>
<p>For the question about philosophy, methodology, etc.</p>
<p>Neither philosophy nor methodology had passage 2 express caution about photography’s negative possibilities. It was “Positive Medium” that was paired with Passage 2’s caution for the disparaging possibilities of photography. I’m sure that’s what everyone wrote down. It was just the spur of the moment that allowed people to simultaneously associate passage 1 with passage 2.</p>
<p>Durhaphduherphuiaspjdasd</p>
<p>So now its entertaining historical fact vs. landmark? Lets take a vote.
I’m in favor of entertaining, because thats what I put. Landmark also seems possible. Lets get a really smart person.</p>
<p>i consistently get 800s on CR sections, but when i retook it today, i thought it was a bit harder than usual!</p>
<p>that photography one was a bit difficult, and i was hoping it was the experimental as i had four CR sections. but apparently not…</p>
<p>was the commonality between the two passages about displaying something that’s reasonable and a human experience that’s dignified (forgot the exact answer, but i know it has dignified in it and the human experience) or about how showing things can exact social change? </p>
<p>can someone create a compilation of the vocab fill-in?</p>
<p>also, was “in cold blood” rationally or heartless detachment? i thought heartless detachment was way too strong.</p>
<p>p.s. DEF entertaining historical fact. </p>
<p>it is indisputable that it is a historical fact. the guy with the flag being able to run in front of it cinched the “entertaining” aspect. </p>
<p>looking at the definition of landmark literally, it states that it’s a significant historical event. the word “hastily” preceding the fact within the passage implies that it was something added wily nily, thus further implying that it was unimportant in the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>@ Jimmy I put author of 1 expresses an idea and author of 2 makes resevations about it (photography question) or something along the lines of that. Earlier some ppl said it was wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s right. Passage 2 definitely said photography was persuasive but one had to have a sense of “fair play”</p>
<p>SC</p>
<pre><code>voluptuous
captivated
aloof and proud
quackery and forestall
inclusive…selection
prescient
adroit…erudition
obdurate
ruminate
meticulous, aberrant
docile
unique
cathartic
exaggerated
output, diverse
accidental, favorable
transcribed
</code></pre>
<p>@chachaseeds</p>
<p>Yeah. I think that when I accidentally associated METHODOLOGY with “Fair play”, I invoked a sense of false realization. I actually just meant to say that the answer was the one which stated that passage 2 expressed a notion of caution/reservation.</p>
<p>thanks @angleofspeed!</p>
<p>do you recall the question with accidental, favorable?</p>
<p>nvm, i remember it.</p>
<p>i dont even remember what the question was with “transcribe”… Cna anyone remind me with a complete sentence… plz</p>
<p>it was about a journalist opting not to write down notes during an interview or something, and later deciding to transcribe it</p>
<p>darn it… i just remembered that i put a wrong answer with “recollect” 700 would be harsh for me now…</p>
<p>okay. so the Catalhuyuk one about the implication is they traded or they shared land with neighbors? there seem to be differing opinions. I myself put they shared land with neighbors so they didn’t have distant farms.</p>
<p>wat was another question for the farming besides the trading one? my memory is certainly dissappointing</p>
<p>@Robotics: You’re welcome, but this isn’t the math thread so please don’t make angle references from my username >.< jkjk :P</p>
<p>I put they traded for the farming question.</p>
<p>@squirrel
It doesn’t make sense that they shared land with neighbors because neighbors imply proximity and thus the seeds would show some kind of wet marshland effect.</p>
<p>However, by having wheat and barley traded, which implies long distance, the commodities would not show the wet marshland effect.</p>
<hr>
<p>What did you guys say for the analogy question in the traffic passage? I’ve asked some people and they agreed with me that the answer was the one with the official who worked with energy becoming a science teacher. Others think differently though.</p>
<p>@ Jimmy so its not “philosophical…detail?” for photography?</p>