<p>Obviously the last section (Japan) was not experimental. I know the sea horse one was not either… Can someone tell me the other passage in that section… the other one was the cold war double passage… I think these three were there for everybody? Did anyone not have these three?</p>
<p>i think architect was with the sea horse</p>
<p>it was condemnation. there is no quesiton. the passage says caustic. </p>
<p>and @rvirginia it was a<b, b/c it said 1<a<b<10</p>
<p>for the one about architecture… the question about what the first quotation meant (line 8 or so)… did u put something about open to interp…</p>
<p>yes to @glasses @horusb</p>
<p>i didnt have any experimental cr bc i had experimental writing. any passage that wasnt about seahorses, architecture, the cold war, or japanese rice was experimental cr</p>
<p>the tone was outright condemnation not skepticism
the keyword that the author spoke “caustically” about training emotions</p>
<p>Which writing one was the experimental? I had 3 writing sections + essay. I remember the one about adapting to technology and I think I did better on that one. Is that the non-experimental?</p>
<p>@glasses we had a whole argument on this thread… its not just condemntation. its OUTSPOKEN condemntation. that is too extreme, especially when he said he is not against it, but only thinks it is a waste of time. the caustic referred to a publication that he wrote. So it is between the two feelings, thus guarded skeptism. done</p>
<p>technology/adapters/resisters was the actual one</p>
<p>also @Meburi and AZKoogle, it was lacking. </p>
<p>want
verb (used without object)
to be lacking or absent, as a part or thing necessary to completeness</p>
<p>how is it guarded?</p>
<p>@Meburi: Please look at my post on 32!</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Just a side note: I really hate this community on collegeconfidential.com. Everyone here acts like a d0uche in the academic world. There’s no such thing as 100% certainty, so swallow your pride and accept that there might be some room for possibility</p>
<p>@glasses1: Hey! Could you please explain why the answer was lacking? In context, it appears as if lacking would imply that there was no reason, or the reason was lacking for the war to start. However, from the two passages, we can see that there in fact was a reason – imperialism!</p>
<p>@glasses I put lacking for that one as well. but we can’t seem to settle with skept/condemn</p>
<p>did u guys get 3 E’s in the Find Error portion of writing</p>
<p>And I’m pretty sure it was gaurded skepticism. Caustic is a synonym for sharp. The author offered sharp critique; that does not mean he outrightly condemned the practice. He merely is skeptical to whether it actually works. Guarded skepticism.</p>
<p>There was one question that compared Seahorse with sharks and whatever.
I am not sure what I put, but, always, what’s the answer for that ?</p>
<p>Why is it lacking?</p>
<p>@glasses your definition uses “lacking” and “necessary” However, the context is that it is NOT necessary…</p>
<p>it was saying war happened because countries wanted it, not out of necessity
desiring, i think, makes sense if u replace it
lacking kind of implies necessity: if i lack something
thoughts??</p>
<p>@desp lacking doesn’t mean there was no reason. the line said “official explanation was lacking” they just simply did not state the reason. The revisionist, as a result, came up with their reason: imperialism.</p>