<p>@divy</p>
<p>you are talking about a different passage completely man.</p>
<p>@desi
My reasoning was (I changed it from qualify a statement) to explain an assertion because he was trying to show that legend led him to assert Galileo learned through his pulse beat.</p>
<p>PS:</p>
<p>What does cold blooded mean?
I put practically.</p>
<p>@ jman i got resolving issues too.</p>
<p>No I’m talking about the legend is believed. It was DEFINITELY in the dashes which was what was being referenced</p>
<p>pretty positive it was qualifying a statement; it was in no way explaining something, like giving scientific details as to why what galileo was talking about was true or not true. it was there mainly to say that this observation isnt too reliable because it was merely legend - comment on the <em>quality</em> or integrity of the statement</p>
<p>had to be commenting on contemporary practices; the author of the first passage was amazed by them, while passage two was talking about the more negative effects. they arent both criticizing, but they ARE both commenting.</p>
<p>For cold blooded I put heartless detachment…</p>
<p>Boy this CR isn’t looking so good…</p>
<p>okay someone compile a list?</p>
<p>@zzzz
Cold-blooded means that literally, But I am sure it doesn’t mean that in context though.</p>
<p>quackery: medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings.
Kind of fits, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a person (I think…).</p>
<p>Btw for the traffic one, what did everyone get regarding the life reference going something like this: “…traffic engineering became authority on pedastal…their neutral ideas…the wealthy supported them”. It was like 4-5 lines and that’s all I can really remember, but the question asked you to interpret it. I put that they gained ‘impressive influence’ or something. Another answer choice for that question was like 'gained power from the wealthy".</p>
<p>Edit:
cold-blooded was “rationally” right? “Heartless detachment” didn’t make much sense.</p>
<p>@SAT</p>
<p>They gained more influence, not power from the wealthy.</p>
<p>@SAT100</p>
<p>I got gaining influence</p>
<p>and it was DEFINITELY quackery and forestall:
“Quackery: medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings.”
“Forestall: Prevent or obstruct (an anticipated event or action) by taking action ahead of time: “vitamins may forestall many diseases of aging.””
The guy thought that the claims were complete quackery (bad medicine), and that while it could obstruct/slow down aging, it couldnt get to it at its core, ie stop it completely and allow the person to completely <em>elude</em> aging.</p>
<p>was that the one with the impeding one? also what was the coldblooded?</p>
<p>In cold blood one, I put with heartless detachment.</p>
<p>Impeding one was the one about their authority and the pedestal.
I put something about appreciable influence.</p>
<p>Someone should take charge and assemble a key…!</p>
<p>or was the impeding a different question in the traffic?</p>
<p>i put rationally for the coldblooded one; to look at it rationally would mean to objectively look at it and figure it out, rather than from the biased or emotionally affected state that the author was in.</p>
<p>Also:
For the one about the acting troupe group, did you put exaggerated?</p>
<p>I was actually going back and forth between heartless detachment and rationally but chose heartless detachment in the end…
@Cynosuree
Yes I got exaggerated</p>
<p>i put rationally too. okay…anyone remember anything else from the clocks…i thought it was impeding…</p>
<p>Yea thats what I put "appreciable influence’.</p>
<p>CR is actually looking good for once 
except photography… don’t know how I did on that.</p>
<p>edit:
Hope the curve isn’t too harsh, since this was an easy test.</p>