<p>i barely remember it, you remember the question or mor importantly any of the other answer choices??</p>
<p>yeah i think i put he approved nomad, disaproved human… and u sure about the assertions?</p>
<p>Yeah, you know the approved nomad, disapproved of scientists way of life answer that you think you put? That was for the specialization question…that’s why I’m not sure why everyone else on CC put a different answer about one way of life being complex and the other way being simple. The nomads’ life was still sophisticated, but in a good way.</p>
<p>Yeah, it was qualifying an assertion. I did process of elimination, but here are reasons why I eliminated someof the others: rebutting an argument, rebutting means like providing evidence against an argument; he didn’t provide any argument, and no one proposed the argument against him in the first place. By introducing a reality about both concept but still showing how it didn’t detract from the authors’ main arguments, the authors used those phrases to further strengthen their own assertions.</p>
<p>Do any of you remember the question where Choice A was ‘Reading a book you hated just so that you could do well on the test’? I remember being between that and choice b…</p>
<p>simple and complex is wrong cuz the nomads were not simple beings, they used complex senses for navigation; the scientist are not simple either, although they have specify in different scientific feilds… the only answer that mad sense was “approve/dissaprove”</p>
<p>Yeah, i agree xs0itg0esx…haven’t you seen that all of the CCers put “simple and complex”? I started to get worried…</p>
<p>I think we agree on almost all the confusing CR questions (Yay!) but I have one question…could you explain why scientists are elevated in society? I’m still not convinced because it doesn’t follow directly from the passage.</p>
<p>Yeah, you know the approved nomad, disapproved of scientists way of life answer
Yes, only by POE. That was a hard one.</p><p>This is my logic. The whole passage talked about how the scientific method was the only excepted way of thinking; the narrarator was mad about this and said that science can sometimes be paradoxical and should be challenged… HOWEVER, he never said that anyone agreed with him, all he said was that people blindly accept science. So scientists and their thought process, in other words, was the NORM of society and were not failing to meet expectations. Since their thought process/ precense was so ubiqutious and accpeted, and were acquiring federal loans, they had an elevated status.</p>
<p>The whole passage talked about how the scientific method was the only excepted way of thinking; the narrarator was mad about this and said that science can sometimes be paradoxical and should be challenged… HOWEVER, he never said that anyone agreed with him, all he said was that people blindly accept science. So scientists and their thought process, in other words, was the NORM of society and were not failing to meet expectations. Since their thought process/ precense was so ubiqutious and accpeted, and were acquiring federal loans, they had an elevated status.
There is some ambiguity towards the definition of "elevated status" as well as "failing to meet the expectations".</p>
<p>I put the latter because the article mentioned that they were given ENOUGH money, yet failed to produce the results... whether or not the society knew about it or not.</p><p>Think about religon… religon is an accepted way of thinking of life. I write a passage saying that it should be challenged. Then I mention churches acquiring federal loans… Than religon has an elevated status… It does not matter if, in my passage, i wrote about how religon is insufficient in answering the quandaries of life, all that matters is that it is universally accpeted (ffor the most part lol)</p>
<p>?mark, i think you read the question wrong, im positive it didnt mention them not getting enough money</p>
<p>Or, I give you 1000$, and you don’t accomplish the task. The society trusts you to do it, but the blind trust results in a failure.</p>
<p>I think you read my post wrong. The passage said they received ENOUGH money.</p>
<p>?mark and xs0itg0esx…dang it, are you sure they received enough money? If you go all the way to the end of the passage (to the first line of the next column), the scientist talked about how it’s difficult/impossible for them to fulfill society’s expectations for justifying all their scientific conclusions because of the funding issues…how does that factor in? Thanks!</p>
<p>^@ littlehanboy:</p>
<p>i put qualifying assertion as well. i also put the approve/disapprove for the nomads question.
however, i put elevated status for the scientist one, since i’m pretty sure it said explicitly that society regarded science as higher up and did not think that they had to account for their money</p>
<p>here’s the thing though, society doesnt think that the science is wrong. They see them getting the funding and still blindly oblige to science. It is ONLY the narrarotor who beleives that they are not meeting expectations</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I have a question.</p>
<p>There was a reading passage about individualism, and the question was:</p>
<p>How did the author look upon people who have dissenting opinions from a group?
I answered “with approval.” Is that right?</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I have a question.</p>
<p>There was a reading passage about individualism, and the question was:</p>
<p>How did the author look upon people who have dissenting opinions from a group?
I answered “with approval.” Is that right?</p>
<p>^@ro51092
I didn’t have that. Experimental?</p>
<p>If the answer was “society thinks science is wrong”, I would’ve put elevated status.</p>
<p>Rather… The question asked what the PASSAGE meant and thus what the author thought… that society trusted the scientists to put out results, however the results were not necessarily worth what they promoted.</p>
<p>Whether the society is aware that their expectations were met or not, is not necessarily relevant to this question.</p>
<p>Alternatively, I saw elevated status as possible, but I felt it was a bit too far to imply that scientists in GENERAL had a higher “social status” merely because they were trusted.</p>
<p>what was the exact wording of the other answer?</p>