<p>Final explanation for that “past/future” question…please, someone tell me if it makes sense:</p>
<p>The first passage described the nomadic way of life as it HAD been for a long time and as it IS now. Then, the passage was also describing a the different views, such as the specialization and all that garbage. </p>
<p>The “question”, then was something like, “what would(will) happen when they’ve assimilated? Will anyone even care?” Then he went on to make an analogy in the sentence right after that described the reason that people would have a potential interest in this. </p>
<p>The question basically set up the author’s discussion about WHY their assimilation would be harmful which, sets up for just a little LATER, the whole notion of diversity (which is the reason why the assimilation would be harmful – bringing this up was the WHOLE point of the shift into the hypthetical scenario). The “tense shift” may or may not be true, but that was not the primary/main function of the line. Nor do we even have verification that the preceeding was in past tense.</p>
<p>imperturbable vs conciliatory [sentence 2] ,dont remember the section,though.I answered ‘‘imperturable’’ ,but was sure that ‘conciliatory’ was correct.</p>
<p>^^^ i am assuming (I could be wrong) that you read the entire passage before you answered that question. I say this because you are unduly inserting information from the 3rd paragraph into the beginning of passage two… The question, as i said 5000000 times before, was asking about the function of that one sentence. not the arthur’s opinion. It could not have set the tone for diversity because the sentence had nothing to do with diversity, and neither did the rest of that paragraph… automatically it’s wrong since the sentence does not deal with diversity whats so ever. Again, that’s one of collegeboard’s tricks; to trick you into puting information outside the specific sentence instead of just focusing on what the question/ complementary sentence is about.
The 1st paragraph had to be about the past because it was talking about a state of existence the nomads are no longer in. the rest of the passage tlked about the future state and possible fate of the nomads… lack of diversity was one of the ominous outcomes, but that was apart of the future speculation and had nothing to do with the second paragraph/ question.</p>
<p>ANYWAY, “tranquil” was the answer to the SC with Eigsenhower</p>
<p>You are so wrong about the past present crap. The answer was that it set the tone for the rest of the discussion. The sentence that they were referring to was something like “What do we stand to lose when entire cultures become extinct?” </p>
<p>^^^they dont tlk about diversity untill after the second paragraph so, even if that WAS the right sentence (which i am pretty sure you’re are pretty acurate), it was not setting the tone for diversity. and even if that was the right sentence, which is most likely, it was transiting the past (paragraph one= nomad prosperity) to the future (what can we possible lose in the future? = paragraph two) you cannot have an answer with “diversity” if its not mention anywhere close to the question it was asking about.</p>
<p>You too spenny must have read the entire passage before you answered the questions. because the latter part of the pssage is influencing the answers you put that speficially were asking about sentences in the bigging</p>
<p>is the tone question completely different than the diversity question? </p>
<p>Even if yes, paragraph one set the tone of the passage because it introduced a nostolgic tone of the nomads. The second paragraph simple shifted the discussion from the past (when the nomads prospered) to the future (where they are dying out)</p>
<p>First of all, it didn’t go from past to “future” it went from present to present. Also, was the PURPOSE of that sentence to go from “past to future” or to set the tone? LOL</p>
<p>LOL so you think the “purpose” of the sentence was to go from past to future? lmao. Yes it said the tone for a subsequent discussion on diversity. Everything jumped off from that question and the answer to it was the “subsequent discussion on diversity”.</p>
<p>Remember the question that went like:
Her obtuse presentation made it impossible for her to (implicate or elucidate) her research’s findings to the audience.
Was the answer implicate or elucidate… i put implicate</p>
