<p>SAT1100 please tell me you got something about most modernized laws standardized…I just know the answer choice had most in it- Morocco and Montana?</p>
<p>I think all of you are not acknowledging the fact that emphasis is placed on the social engineering part, in which he teaches people how to act socially.</p>
<p>Teaching people how to act socially wasn’t his main “job,” traffic was. Yet he did that anyway because of his knowledge in traffic engineering allowed for some basic social engineering knowledge.</p>
<p>The person working with energy is in the same situation. Although only working with energy, his knowledge in that area would allow for some basic knowledge in the general area of science.</p>
<p>Thus, like Eno, who is originally a traffic engineer doing more than his knowledge actually allows him to do, the person working with energy does the same thing: becoming a science teacher who does not truly have the full knowledge for such a task.</p>
<p>@alargeblackman Yea it was something like ‘shows laws were standardized’.</p>
<p>btw I found the 2nd passage of the photography passage if anyone is interested. It appears in a couple of books, but I think this book was the first to publish the passage and probably the one that ETS got the passage from.
Its titled “Photojournalism:the professionals’ approach, Volume 2”. Google it and you will find a couple free samples of the book, but the sample doesn’t have the part we are looking for!</p>
<p>can you give the actual link?</p>
<p>Ok guys the phenomenon/ theory answer choices were:
- philisophy and how it came to be
- theory and ways of testing it</p>
<p>I chose theory because i thought it was more like the theory that outside factors influence the internal rhythm, and then the passage goes on to explain this with the airplane ride and how people lose their sense of local time, and also the man in the gave who tried to eliminate outside facors by living in a cave? what were ur reasoninings for them?</p>
<p>Ok, but SAT100 and anyone else…do you remember if the morocoo/montana one had the phrase “most” in it because i cant remember standardized./</p>
<p>The answer to the question with the --TEXT-- is qualifying a statement:</p>
<p>I did some research (aka a simple google search) and this is what I got</p>
<p>"Qualifying your statements
If you qualify your statement, you add some information, evidence, or phrase in order to make it less strong or less generalized (recommended). It is not good practice to produce lots of strong (or categorical) statements. These are statements which you appear to support 100%. If for example you say ‘It is undeniable that…’, you are making a categorical statement (not recommended).</p>
<p>You might think that by making strong statements you sound confident. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your reader will probably think you lack wisdom. So… It is far better to write in a cautious style and not to commit yourself absolutely to generalizations. This an area where many second language writers are particularly weak."</p>
<p>sat 100 i got progression</p>
<p>@silveralpaca i got transcribed, 100% rite dw</p>
<p>What was the question for the one with the answer progression?</p>
<p>@jimmypod I think you’re explanation just countered yourself.</p>
<p>"–if legend can be believed–" gives a sense of doubt whether we could trust a 500 year old legend. He’s warning the readers that “If you believe in legend, then you could probably believe” </p>
<p>This does not make a “strong argument” and it is not “evidence” as your source points out, it’s actually the opposite.</p>
<p>“Explain an assertion” fits in better because if he were just to say what Galileo did, someone could take it as a straight fact, but it is in fact, not, it’s a legend, and therefore, he’s “explaining” that it could be wrong or right.</p>
<p>@blackman Can’t remember, sorry.</p>
<p>@baseball I think that might have been a different question.</p>
<p>@00o000I guess I could have, but there really is no point because we would have to buy the book just to see the passage.</p>
<p>@s3xting Wasn’t it proved by the end of the passage that it was not a theory, but an actual phenomenon.</p>
<p>@GoodJobBro</p>
<p>He was not explaining an assertion. He was giving room for doubt, as in, “If you can believe this legend, then my previous assertion can be held as true”</p>
<p>For that to happen, he is making his argument less assertive and more modest. This makes the answer “Qualifying a statement” That is exactly what qualifying a statement means. Exactly what he was doing.</p>
<p>The best answer, in terms of definition, is qualifying a statement, not explaining an assertion. Although your interpretation of explaining an assertion may hold true for the question at hand, it does not provide for the best answer.</p>
<p>I think you read all of my quote and misread it. I’ll just provide a snippet this time:</p>
<p>“If you qualify your statement, you add some information, evidence, or phrase in order to make it less strong or less generalized”</p>
<p>@jimmy agreed. </p>
<p>Anyone remember the answer choices for the people who did not live crazy lives SC?</p>
<p>I still think it is methodology.</p>
<p>The answer is definitely “qualifying a statement”. If one had known what “qualifying a statement” meant during the test, it would have been extremely obvious. When I read that statement, --if legend can be believed–, I knew that was qualification.</p>
<p>I hope you guys understand that even if you guys debate on problems, the answers do not change. All we can do is wait until Feb 16, or perhaps until QAS is sent out.</p>
<p>^Agreed.</p>
<p>It was a common trick by ETS. They know that most students don’t know qualified means ‘to limit, or to restrict’, so they used the word qualify.</p>
<p>I think all of you are not acknowledging the fact that emphasis is placed on the social engineering part, in which he teaches people how to act socially.</p>
<p>Teaching people how to act socially wasn’t his main “job,” traffic was. Yet he did that anyway because of his knowledge in traffic engineering allowed for some basic social engineering knowledge.</p>
<p>The person working with energy is in the same situation. Although only working with energy, his knowledge in that area would allow for some basic knowledge in the general area of science.</p>
<p>Thus, like Eno, who is originally a traffic engineer doing more than his knowledge actually allows him to do, the person working with energy does the same thing: becoming a science teacher who does not truly have the full knowledge for such a task.</p>
<p>Someone please respond to this post.</p>
<p>@sat100, please post the entire compiled list please!!! 
i hope we got close to 67 questions lol, so we can kindo be more accurate and less anxious. lol</p>
<p>@magentaturtle</p>
<p>Just as the recycling man was teaching others about his own profession, so the traffic regulation man was teaching others about his own profession.</p>
<p>I just think that the analogy is more clear and definite with the recycling/workshop answer choice.</p>