<p>O.K. that’s what I thought just conveyed it into the wrong words.
Thanks for clarifying.</p>
<p>Yeah, I was rushed for time during that section, so I had to guess impulsively. Don’t remember a lot of questions from that passage.</p>
<p>what are the answers to all the questions from the tribulations passage?</p>
<p>Towards the beginning of the passage it’s said that she had never been to tribulation her self, only told about it. The passage was about how the "palatial ch</p>
<p>to transmit (programs) from a radio or television station.
2.
to speak, perform, sponsor, or present on a radio or television program: The President will broadcast his message on all stations tonight.
3.
to cast or scatter abroad over an area, as seed in sowing.
4.
to spread widely; disseminate: She broadcast the good news all over town.
5.
to indicate unwittingly to another (one’s next action); telegraph: He broadcast his punch and the other man was able to parry it.</p>
<p>Looking at dictionary.com, looks like its “distribute widely”? Collegeboard tests the secondary or tertiary (and i guess in this case, quaternary?) definitions.</p>
<p>What was the answer to the question talking about how the brain received the pain signal from the receptors? The choices were:</p>
<p>A. The brain can shut off pain at will
b. the brain is not involved.
c. the signal is automatically received
d&e no idea</p>
<p>In reference to the questions on the previous page, I put deleterious and romantice reverie for those two questions.</p>
<p>And I’m fairly sure that we’ve agreed that it is Idyllic…</p>
<p>@violinplayer:
almost positive it was C</p>
<p>Violinplayer: I think that question was about the original view of how pain is perceived by the body… which would have made the answer b. The brain is not involved. But I don’t really remember.</p>
<p>I believe an earlier consensus was for “distributed widely”</p>
<p>@aigiqinf: It was the original.</p>
<p>Also for the purpose/main idea of the Descartes (same) passage. Is it because the author was irreverent to the theory (or was that the chronic question…?)</p>
<p>no, it said something like the brain automatically interpreted it.
Descartes wasn’t stupid. he knew the brain would have to have some involvement - though he wrongly thought minimal - in the response to pain.</p>
<p>@Violinplayer – The answer was definitely “pain is an auomatic response to physical injury” or something along those lines, so essentially what you said was option c.</p>
<p>^But this is a question regarding HIS theory.</p>
<p>How was it automatically? The receptors had to send the signal to the brain.</p>
<p>And I remember that the text said PURELY PHYSICAL</p>
<p>I prolly forgot what I put too… You guys are prolly right tho :P</p>
<p>well, it sure as dfjsdkjf ain’t “the brain isn’t involved” or whatever that option was.</p>
<p>“the receptors had to send the signals to the brain”</p>
<p>Oh, and since I didn’t see your latest question until I posted that, I believe the answer to the main purpose question was something like “to show how modern research has improved upon an old idea.”</p>
<p>There was a question about why the new research was so shocking, though, which you might be getting that one confused with. The answer to the shockig question was that it was such a novel idea or something like that.</p>
<p>but it wasnt automatic?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d also like to know the answer to this one. I don’t remember what I put. =/</p>
<p>no, i think that was the best response.
the analogy went something like “pulling a rope to ring a bell” - a more or less automatic process.
really. i’m almost 100% positive.</p>
<p>Also was it “an instance of recurrent phenomenon” </p>
<p>or just “recurrent phenomenon”</p>