<p>Agreed… that one was a killer question for observation/explanation. </p>
<p>I guess all of us are just arguing more confidence into ourselves… but I can’t think of anyone who actually felt comfortable filling in that bubble.</p>
<p>Bob, I’m 100% sure that his point wasn’t to be critical of the scientist’s data. He acknowledges them in a positive manner. Even though he says it’s irrelevant, it actually stems of his points.</p>
<p>
It was definitely significant but discomforting. He thought that the whole race issue was significant, but he felt uncomfortable with his work being read aloud.</p>
<p>Pertinent observation/explanation IS resolved. Being an explanation would imply that all the people knew about mark twain’s quote before they judged the indian guys work. The quote comes AFTER the judgment of his work. Therefore it is an observation and not an explanation.</p>
<p>Spectravoid, I’m positive it said animals AND plants because I specifically used that line as reasoning to support my answer.</p>
<p>spectravoid, it definitely said that several plants and animals would die because of that plant consuming all the light. no question</p>
<p>And just because some plants are able to survive doesn’t mean it’s protecting them. They could struggle, but still survive.</p>
<p>im 100% sure it’s “destroy natural habitats.” no doubt whatsoever.</p>
<p>i checked that question multiple times</p>
<p>i’m positive the passage said that only a few species of plants could survive under it
i thought destroy natural habitat was a little too extreme, so i wasn’t postiive with that one</p>
<p>That doesn’t matter. Because they can survive does NOT imply that it helps them.Let’s stop arguing over a stupid question.</p>
<p>Going back to what I said before…why was the answer “acknowledged the scientists’ work but irrelevant to his argument”?</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure explanation/observation as number 11 on section 9, so I’ll definitely check when I get back the answers. And like I said, I’m 112% sure that it said animals and plants.</p>
<p>
Because he didn’t refute the scientists arguments but instead pushed them aside as not important. In other words, he acknowledged them but they were irrelevant. He did NOT say anything about whether they were right or wrong.</p>
<p>owning not renting</p>
<p>metaphor</p>
<p>But latency you don’t have to think they’re wrong to think they’re useless. He said they were “not the point”, which is not necessarily saying they were irrelevant…in fact…they were extremely relevant! They were about the same topic! He just says they’re “not the point”, and that they shouldn’t be studying that…aka…useless.</p>
<p>Bob, in short - the answer you put was too extreme. The passage merely suggested irrelevance. </p>
<p>Owning not renting is NOT a metaphor. What is it comparing? What is the analogy?</p>
<p>I really don’t understand how it can possibly be irrelevant when its about the same subject.</p>
<p>BobDylan, it’s irrelevant to the author’s point, not to the overall subject</p>
<p>it wasn’t a warning because the author wasn’t really warning us about anything, he was more informing us</p>
<p>Well, he says anyways “that’s not my point” or something almost EXACTLY along those lines. </p>
<p>He suggested that the scientists are irrelevant. Although I’m sure the author implemented that passage in there to support himself - why would you put a fact in that supports your case, then say the fact is easily refutable? What he meant to say is, while all these facts may be true, they don’t matter because the other evidence is even bigger.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant, because it still applies. He said “that’s not the point” which more implies uselessness than irrelevancy.</p>
<p>irrelevant |iˈreləvənt|
adjective
not connected with or relevant to something.</p>
<p>Ergo, not the point.</p>
<p>What was the Zubin passage</p>