<p>^ yes sushi that was Question 2 there is no dispute over that.</p>
<p>It was general and specific. lol jjj, i hardly trust your opinion anymore…you just seem pretty bad at CR. This isn’t even debatable.</p>
<p>what were the other choices to the practitioner question??</p>
<p>& the other options for question with critical…vs enthusiastic</p>
<p>Well, I just didn’t get the feel that the second passage was providing a historical analysis of anything. While it did mention that the tradition had been around for a long time, it seemed to focus on the present-day resurgence. </p>
<p>The choice “phenomenon…specific example” seemed to fit very well. The first passage did not give specific examples of alternative medicines; rather, it gave a brief overview of the popularity of alternative medicine and reasons why it is popular. The second passage elaborated on a specific type of alternative medicine.</p>
<p>Threehit- you are an absolute joke. 1. you dont know me or my CR ability 2. As far CR is concerned it appears that youve gotten several wrong and I, even if I am wrong on this (which I dont think I am) have 2 wrong overall (including SC, according to this forum). </p>
<p>Star- I see. Are we all in agreement on the fact that the 1st passage is critical and the 2nd passage is more enthusiastic (the 2nd question)? Well this difference highlights the fact that each one takes an ANALYTICAL APPROACH, and each comes to a different conclusion. I believe the first passage gave specific examples of applications of modern medicines, while the second passage gave a historical analyses of a alternative medicine. The first passage determined that alternative medicines were less effective in application than modern medicines (therefire critical), and the second passage determined that alternative medicine is grounded by historical data cumulated over thousands of years, and its practictioners therefore have insight (hence Enthusiastic). </p>
<p>These two answers cannot coexist, and if we have accepted Q 2 to be critical/enthusiastic, then the answer cannot be phenomenon/spec.examp. (If the above statement isnt convincing enough).</p>
<p>i quote myself -.-</p>
<p>the historical choice is incorrect because the choice says passage one describes specifically the modern practice of the practice mentioned in passage two, which is specifically discussing Indian traditional medicine. This is wrong; passage one discusses alt. med. in general, never mentioning any specific kind of alt med. </p>
<p>The phenomenon answer was the better choice. To be critical of something doesn’t mean you cannot discuss it it (phenomenon). </p>
<p>thanks to this thread, I can now properly spell phenomenon.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You completely missed the point, maybe you should reread. (Not being obnoxious but what you said is utterly irrelevant and does not address my post). </p></li>
<li><p>I never said you can’t discuss something if you’re critical of it. In fact that makes absolutely no sense. I said that passage 1 discusses the modern applications of alternative medicine and comes to a critical conclusive that it it less effective than modern medicine. </p></li>
<li><p>Before you post (reader) carefully read my argument and if you disagree refute it directly.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Passage 2 was far too narrow to be considered hitorical- besides, it only briefly alluded to the history of the practice, concerning itself more with describing the essence of the process. </p>
<p>Passage 1 even alludes briefly to the history, but what it doesn’t do is discriminate between specific types of alternative medicines, lumping them all together in one catagory. </p>
<p>Passage 2 then exemplifies, in a specific example, the mindset that Passage 1 finds erroneous- abiding by these practices based purely on their historical merits.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don’t see how I missed the point. I’m pointing out exactly why the historical/modern choice can be slashed.</p></li>
<li><p>you yourself said “These two answers cannot coexist, and if we have accepted Q 2 to be critical/enthusiastic, then the answer cannot be phenomenon/spec.examp. (If the above statement isnt convincing enough).”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Passage 1 being critical doesn’t exclude it from discussing the phenomenon.</p>
<p>zhoas- Ill explain to you then in a simpler way: </p>
<p>You say that because Passage 1 doesnt mention specific alt meds then it must be general. </p>
<p>You also say that “To be critical of something doesn’t mean you cannot discuss it it”. </p>
<p>The point of my argument was that Passage 1 and Passage 2 approach the topic of Alt. med. from two different viewpoints. Passage 1 analyzes the application of alternative medicine in modern day society (giving specific examples of its applications). To put it more clearly it doesnt need to mention a specific alt. med. to be specific, since that is not the topic of the passage. I will repeat again the first passage dealt solely with APPLICATION OF ALT. MEDICINE and not TYPES OF ALT MEDICINE. </p>
<p>next, I never said you cant discuss something your critical of. You actually HAVE to discuss something if you are clearly critical of it. You arent making sense (no offense). I stated that that passage 1 simplyy discusses the modern applications of alternative medicine and comes to a CRITICAL CONCLUSION that it it less effective than modern medicine. </p>
<p>The critical/enthusiastic answer and phenomen/spec.example cannot coexist BECAUSE for two things to be critical and enthusiastic they have to have differing ANALYTICAL viewpoints. If you don’t understand: if there are two DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS then the passages cannot simply be a description of a phenomenon and then that of a specific example. They approach the topic from two totally different viwpoints. </p>
<p>The second passage was grounded completely in historical fact. I remember specifically dates of the indian alt med, the fact that it has been around over 2000 years, and the argument that this longevity gave the alt. medicine some medical clout. </p>
<p>Any real refutations? id like to hear because I want to settle the issue (for my sake and yours).</p>
<p>i put historical/modern too (i think), JJJJ </p>
<p>i get what you’re trying to say with the two answers can’t coexist, but even if there aren’t no real refutations, it doesn’t mean that the historical/modern one is right (although i hope it is) and the phenom/spec ex is wrong.</p>
<p>Just wait until June 26. I dont think it’s necessary for you guys to ‘argue it out’.</p>
<p>Yeah well if we figure out the answers we wont have to wait. and i think it kindof does, since they contradict each other.</p>
<p>historical/modern seemed correct at the time, and it still does now! HOORAH!</p>
<p>Oh wow upon rereading my argument I wasnt as clear as I shoulve been in my reasoning that the two answers cannot coexist. Ill briefly sum up my thoughts: </p>
<p>If critical or enthusiastic, then analytical
If analytical, then not a description </p>
<p>Descriptions are not analytical by definition. real simple.</p>
<p>now im even more confused with your ‘brief explaination’</p>
<p>number 2 had answer choice about historical and stuff
and dat’s wat i put, i guess i’m wrong :(</p>
<p>number 1
passage 1 : don’t remember but something more general i guess
passage 2: specific phenomenon. passage talked about alternative medicine specifically dat was name something like “cat…” with herbs and plants. it started w/ letter C but can’t remember the entire word.</p>
<p>What I was trying to say is this:
When I was answering this question, I was debating between modern/historical and phenomenon/specific example. I ended up picking the latter choice because the former had something wrong with it, so I eliminated it. IIRC, the modern/historical choice was along the lines of: passage 2 discusses a practice of alternative medicine historically, while passage 1 describes the modern application of that practice. This tells me the choice is saying passage 1 is specifically discussing the Indian form of alternative medicine mentioned in passage 2. Passage 1 does not do this; it does discuss alternative medicine but not specifically any Indian form. That’s why I crossed out the modern/historical and chose the other one.</p>
<p>there’s no real way to convince each other; we’ll have to wait until june 26.</p>
<p>jjj is in denial. Don’t even bother. Oh, and JJJ, I only have 1 wrong so far, and that’s iffy (fabricating-edify one). lol@you</p>
<p>Gee, I picked general/specific on the spot. For Modern/Historical, I guess you just labored your brain to arrive at that choice.</p>