<p>Controversial .. hypothesis
Suspended .. suffered
Obstreperous
does anyone remember the SC to this? thanks!</p>
<p>trust me, it's exagerrated.</p>
<p>The key word in the sentence is SIMPLY.</p>
<p>the sentence says (paraprhased): the scientists took the fact that the protein is simply folded for granted.</p>
<p>*to take for granted means to underestimate the value of.</p>
<p>so, they were underestimating that the protein in simply folded. Which means they were underestimating the simpleness of it, and thus exagerrating it's intricacy.</p>
<p>hopefully my logic isn't completely screwed :)</p>
<p>but ah well, it's just the SAT.</p>
<p>I totally guessed on parity, too - I was thinking of the French word "partager" (to share) and I was like, ah well they both have "par" in it</p>
<p>so, they were underestimating that the protein in simply folded. Which means they were underestimating the simpleness of it, and thus exagerrating it's intricacy.
^Those are two opposite things. If I exaggerate the intricacy of something, i make it seem more complicated, not less. Underestimate/complexity makes much more sense.</p>
<p>Anybody remember the sentence for suspended/suffered?</p>
<p>wait, nvm. I think i'm still right.</p>
<p>If you underestimate somethings simpleness, it means you think it is more complicated than it really is. So you exagerate it's intricacy.</p>
<p>youll see- All you are doing is confusing yourself. It was obviously understimate...complexity, if u feel so strongly then write out the whole sentence word for word. You WILL see.</p>
<p>haha...</p>
<p>I seriously think you guys looked over the word simply...it was a tricky question.</p>
<p>Anybody remember the sentence for suspended/suffered?</p>
<p>Youll see write out the sentence. and think.</p>
<p>Ok, Ill do it for you. The friggin scientists thought that the cell (or whatever) simply recoiled, however they underestimated its complexity. Do you see (not word for word, but its the spirit of the sentene)?</p>
<p>Basically, JJJJ spelled it out for you. If I exaggerate something's intricacy, I make it seem overcomplicated. The sentence was about underestimating the intricacy of the DNA's movement or whatever.</p>
<p>jjjj, you forgot the "took for granted part".</p>
<p>The friggin scientists took for granted that the cell (or whatever) simply recoiled, however they exagerrated it's intricacy.</p>
<p>"took for granted" and "simply" are the clues.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter! Exaggerating the intricacy of something means making it more complicated. The scientists weren't doing that.</p>
<p>GOD DAMN IT I HAD VITRIOLIC/SAVIOR BUT CHANGED TO INVETERATE/RENOUNCE</p>
<p>nooooooooooooooooooo</p>
<p>lol, why is this one question such a big deal anyway.</p>
<p>we'll see on June 26th...for now, who cares.</p>
<p>also, if MrPrez's sentence is correct, than the answer has to be exaggerrated.</p>
<p>youllsee</p>
<p>here's the problem</p>
<p>Previously, the scientists took for granted that a sponge would simply recoil; now the researchers realize they (the earlier scientists) had underestimated its intricacy. </p>
<p>understand?</p>
<p>You'll care, you'll see, hehe.</p>
<p>It comes back on the 26th?</p>