<p>I think graphic violence and media being disposable were two choices to the same question. And yeah, the china dog had both those as answers I think. One asked why they were valued later, and the other asked what the author thought made objects valuable.</p>
<p>having his work read aloud was significant but discomforting</p>
<p>can somebody PLEASE tell me if there was another answer that was remotely possible?<br>
I wonder if i’m thinking of another question, but something like the MATTERS (race, religion) were more important to him than others?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The main focus was that their unaccustomed to it. It’s a cause,effect,effect. Time may be the root cause, but it was reasoning is that they no longer see it. I don’t know if that makes crystal clear sense, but TIME causes everything, and is not a reasonable answer to the question.</p></li>
<li><p>That’s what I had…</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t remember, more specific wording would help.</p></li>
<li><p>Err, the author differed from the guy he quoted because he thought that media could actually harm children, whereas the guy thought children would outgrow it like comic books.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I remember the Matters question, and I also remember not having too much trouble with it. I’ll need a some more specific answer choices/questioning to remember exactly what I put.</p>
<p>Why was this answer decided to be true?
“-relationship – expanded upon insight”</p>
<p>How is it expanding upon insight? The main focus of the second passage was that its humbling that creatures at the top can be brought down to the bottom, using lions as an example. It does mention humans, but the first passage is all about how lions are unstoppable and the second one shows how they’re dying off. I picked the contradiction answer.</p>
<p>I don’t remember what 4 was, but for 1, I’m sure it was 2 different questions and both were answers.</p>
<p>“The fact that Twain’s quote did not reflect the actual situation is actually more against observation, rather than explanation. Explanation can be implied by the opposition, whereas observations generally are not. Like I said, the key I saw was the next sentence “People must not adore me”.”</p>
<p>I’m still wondering about that Mark Twain quote. It doesn’t make sense that the Twain quote was used an explanation. The first sentence after the quote was something like, “His colleagues must not have ever heard the quote.” It just doesn’t make sense as a literal explanation - that the colleagues didn’t compliment him because they hadn’t heard the quote before. Rather the author is using the Twain quote, to demonstrate the observation that people weren’t impressed with Indian’s literature.</p>
<p>And BobDylan, the 2nd passage expanded on an insight from the 1st passage because the guy in the first passage said, “I don’t like being around lions because I’m reminded that they’re higher than me on the food chain.” The 2nd passage was completely based on this, explaining how it’s important that we’re humbled by creatures higher than us on the food chain.</p>
<p>But the extinction contradicts that.</p>
<p>“But the extinction contradicts that.”</p>
<p>No it doesn’t - the 2nd passage author is worried about the extinction. he believes these animals must remain around so that we can continue to be humbled by their existence. He likes the fact that these animals are higher on the food chain.</p>
<p>I ended up putting cliche, which I also think is a terrible answer. The cliche I had in mind was the so called “man-eating animals” type stories. </p>
<p>My main problem with insight was the relevance - one cannot honestly read the first passage and say that the “insight” of the first passage was focused on anything broader than the magnificence of lions.</p>
<p>Couldn’t you argue that the extinction is contradicting the fact that lions “own” the planet?</p>
<p>The answer wasn’t destroy natural habitats. the passage didn’t say anything about destroying natural habitats</p>
<p>it just said that it made the area under the trees like deserts where only a few species of plants could stay</p>
<p>so the answer was it was protection for some plants</p>
<p>Huh? how can it protect plants if it destroyed them? It made some habitats like deserts and it said animals AND plants can’t live their, hence destroying that natural habitat.</p>
<p>BobDylan, I think no because lions are still technically at the top of the food chain, again expanding on that insight from the first passage (“I don’t like lions - they’re higher than me on the food chain”)</p>
<p>And yes, the answer was destroy natural habitats - the article specifically said that the tree can take up so much light that other plants and animals will die (remember that these plants are in competition with each other for light - if one plant takes it all, the others die, and then the animals that eat the plants die: voila, habitat destroyed)</p>
<p>Err, protection? meh, don’t even remember considering that as a possibility.</p>
<p>Last sentence basically said that the plant choked out everything and all the sunlight, which is where the destruction came from.</p>
<p>It was definitely destroy natural habitats. It said they came in and could expand with very little restriction, leaving little hope for all but few animals.</p>
<p>okk updateddd CONSOLIDATED LIST</p>
<p>SC
-florid
-malfeasance
-pastoral
-intemperance/inimical
-mellifluous
-guilt/compunction
-superficial/compromising
-commended/invited
-stark/cerebral
-controversy
-innuendo</p>
<p>Old china being valued years later
-sheer light heartedness – showed they didn’t value it
-amused disbelief
-reason for being valued is passage of time
-future values them b/c they’re unaccustomed to it</p>
<p>Big leaves
-factor driving it is breaches in the canopies
-destroys natural habitats
-other 2 questions???</p>
<p>Lion – 2 passages
-both say that humans are prey
-relationship – expanded upon insight
-first passage made use of personal anecdote
-owning not renting – metaphor/warn readers??</p>
<p>Dinosoaur museum – 2 passages
-admires the dinosaur exhibits b/c they’re everything she’s not
-beneficial and important
-ultimately problematic
-soemthing-uh-saurus – bewilderment??
-dogmatic scientists see it as heresy – strong objection
-character = nature
-scientists doubt the public would appreciate the process</p>
<p>Chidlren & media
-it was not ever thus – crystallize his point
-to draw attention ??
-children’s perceptions are determined by pop culture
-children are ironists - learn that the media will just be thrown out
-how author’s view differed from one mentioned in passage … disagree b/c?
-pulp = inferior form of lit
-graphic violence/media being disposable ???
-acknowledged the scientists’ work but irrelevant to his argumentt</p>
<p>Indian computer programmer gone novelist
-changed from unselfconscious pleasure to respect for challenges of the creative process
-italicized each and every – redundancy or qualifiers or pervasive phenomenon???
-profound – difference between lightning and lightning bug
-having his work read aloud was significant but discomforting
-mark twain - pertinent observation
-list of differences showed his rich diversity
-analogy: artist recording her single over and over
-elaborating
-received = understood
-different interpretations
-attributed his surprise that writing could be taken in different ways to - ???</p>
<p>It was definitely destroying natural habitats. The last couple sentences of the passage talked about how the tree covered the sky so quickly that animals could no longer live around the tree.</p>
<p>“his work read aloud was significant but discomforting” - wasn’t the whole point that he actually FELT comforted by reading aloud, but it didn’t resound with the audience? there was a choice like that…</p>
<p>secondly - pertinent observation/explanation will never be resolved lol.</p>
<p>It was definitely destroy natural habitats. It said they came in and could expand with very little restriction, leaving little hope for all but few animals.</p>
<p>it didn’t say a few animals it said species of plants</p>
<p>and one of the choices said that the tree provided protection to some plants</p>
<p>“acknowledged the scientists’ work but irrelevant to his argument”</p>
<p>Couldn’t the chastise them for performing useless research work here too? He actually said in the passage that the research was “not the point”. This is refuting their research…not just saying its irrelevant. He said they were missing the point, making it useless.</p>