<p>oh thx. ya that was 6. i thought you refered to another question</p>
<p>thx so much</p>
<p>is the general consensus that the answer was "personal/phd" and not "disappointed expectation"??</p>
<p>I hope people aren't confusing the fact that there were two different questions, but yes--- I'm almost positive one of the answers was "for educational and personal purposes" or something like that.</p>
<p>yes, i agree with the above personal/phd</p>
<p>but for this question,
does anyone remember the authors exact thesis?</p>
<p>"It was between either just because she can't understand the symbols, doesn't mean others can't, or the women intended for people not to know the meaning of thier symbols, i put the women didn't intend for people to understand their symbol"
i think i put the latter, because i remembered her going into great deal explaining how the japanese are trained to know what the symbols mean in a poem, kind of as a reflex. thus, i figured that " just because she can't understand the symbols, doesn't mean others can't" wasn't correct, because the woman already acknowledged that some people did indeed understand these symbols. i think. hmm can someone explain their reasoning</p>
<p>matt i think you are wrong o both</p>
<p>the answer should be disappointment</p>
<p>the second answer should be that others can understand but only she can't</p>
<p>well in your opinion
im pretty sure the first one is right, can you explain the second one?</p>
<p>for the sentence completion w/ california, supposedly the answer is vanguard? does anyone remember the other choices?</p>
<p>because the author said that the old ideas were understood because the japanese were trained to understand them. the new ones were esoteric because it was inventive. she is trying to point out that she is not stupid because everyone is like her; can't construe the meaning of the symbols. thus if other ppl can understand the symbols, it would make her presumptions of her enitr essay wrong.</p>
<p>btw she did say she looked forward to it but because she can't understand the poems, she felt it was a waste of time thus a project that turned into a disappointment is right..</p>
<p>"she felt it was a waste of time thus a project that turned into a disappointment is right.." that still seems to me to be to strong for a CR answer. She did complain a lot about it, but i doubt even ETS would put an essay on there that we had to read, with the entire point of the essay being that this one woman had a wasted experiance</p>
<p>oh by the way, anyone remember the author or anything else about the article? like the flowy adjectives that the japanese used? specific things like that. we can google it and see it, so we dont have to make things up from what we remember...</p>
<p>edit: Im still having trouble with that one. I didn't really think the THESIS of the passage was about new poetry, i thought it was about japenese symbols in general</p>
<p>Oh, okay, I remember that option now that matt mentioned the "waste of time" thing. She was probably disappointed, but I don't think there was any evidence of her considering it a "waste of time" in the passage.</p>
<p>And I also chose "just because she couldn't understand the poems doesn't mean that others couldn't," because the author said at the end of the passage something like "no one could understand the meaning of the symbols." Remember that the question is asking which argument would most directly refute the author's, and seeing as her point was that the poems were so abtract and personal that nobody could understand them (and she made it seem as if this wasn't the purpose of the authors), that sounded more like the correct answer to me.</p>
<p>point well taken, thanks zach. guess i skimmed over that passage too quickly :)</p>
<p>"that still seems to me to be to strong for a CR answer. She did complain a lot about it, but i doubt even ETS would put an essay on there that we had to read, with the entire point of the essay being that this one woman had a wasted experiance"</p>
<p>Not really. The poems just didn't meet up to her personal expectation--she was still doing it for her doctorate. It was a dissapointment for her because the subject matter in the poems were cliche and the imagery was, as Vehement said, esoteric. She was expecting poetry that could be enjoyed on a personal level, and didn't get what she wanted. It was still important to discuss why she thought the poems 'missed the target', so to speak--as opposed to haikus.</p>
<p>wait, so bioni, you still stand by your
"Yeah because she said she was doing it for her doctorate and then later in that paragraph she said she was hoping to find some interesting poems--but then she was dissapointed because they sucked, or whatever.</p>
<p>Personal + Educational"
right?</p>
<p>matt state the original question please</p>
<p>also can everyone get all of the correct SC choices listed down</p>
<p>It was personal educational, postive, i think the dissapointment was a different question, but maybe I'm wrong.</p>
<p>And for whoever asked about the california, what were the other choices, do you remember? I thought that one was fairly straightforward, but I can't remember the other choices :-/</p>
<p>pitcher indeed.</p>
<p>lmao those are two different questions thus i asked matt what was the original question</p>
<p>Myriad
Virulent
Amalgam
vanguard
Supine(but i put precarious and im sticking to it!!! Dictionary.com: Dangerously lacking in security or stability: a precarious posture; precarious footing on the ladder)
Imperious
bane
elaborate,subtle
master then specialization.</p>
<p>vanguarD? whats the question?</p>
<p>elaborate,subtle
master then specialization.</p>
<p>whats those questions as well</p>
<p>btw supine is definately right</p>
<p>crap, i definitely put originate instead of vanguard</p>
<p>never really remember any question with vanguard as answer >_<</p>