<p>@Meburi
“caustically” – severely critically
“outspoken” – frank in stating one’s opinions, esp. if they are critical or controversial
“condemnation” – expressing an unfavorable or adverse judgment on</p>
<p>it said it was in his writing, but that doesnt matter. if it was in his writing he was thinking about it caustically, and if he thought about it caustically then he surely would respond to those methods caustically —> “outspoken condemnation”!</p>
<p>outspoken and condemnation go hand in hand, “outspoken” doesnt make “condemnation” any more severe than it already is. a combination of the above definition yields </p>
<p>outspoken condemnation – “frankness (plainness of speech) in stating/expressing an unfavorable or adverse judgment on” in this case, Mamet’s openness (so open that he published his opinion as you admitted) in expressing his adverse (caustic) judgement on</p>
<p>@glasses then wat do u say about the part where he said he is not against the practice. That line tones down the condemnation feeling. do u not think so?</p>
<p>@Meburi i agree with your response to Desperados! it was saying there was no explicit reason for why the us was going to war. i think it was something about the public being confused as to why the cold war was happening …? (maybe/maybe not) → the reason for war was lacking an explanation, and so the rest of the passage goes on the explain the revisionist explanation</p>
<p>the parabola one must be a>1 because you are not told the roots, all you know is that both roots are negative. if the answer was x^2+4x+3, it would have also crossed the y axis at 3 and in the picture the parabola didn’t even cross the y axis</p>
<p>@meburi, i dont remember if it said explicitly that he is not against the practice. but what i do remember that it said he thought that the methods mentioned in passage 1 were a waste of time. anyway, looks like neither of us will change our opinion… so this is pointless. we both could be wrong, that much is for sure</p>
<p>@AZKoogle, dont remember what the choices were, but the answer was subtle but affecting (or something like that) b/c the seahorse was tiny, elusive, and camouflaged with its surroundings so it wasn’t as “loud” as a shark swimming through water or whatever example it was.</p>
<p>Guys, for lacking vs. desiring
it said they went to war not because it was necessary, but because they wanted to
desiring fits this perfectly… it’s not necessary, but they desire it</p>
<p>lacking doesn’t because it implies some sense of necessity</p>
<p>@glasses I put “less fierce and graceful”. by comparing sea horse to a shark, it is less fierce. by comparing sea horse to a (sth beautiful marine animal or plant) it was less graceful. putting subtle but affecting doesn’t give the reason for comparison to shark + (sth above). and the question asked about the comparison</p>
<p>Wasn’t the one about the seahorse/sharks “universally recognized”? Because it said that the seahorse was “for the secret eye,” thus not as universally recognized as the shark</p>
<p>@meburi: it had mentioned before that line already that it was because of American expansionism. Because the whole passage is about revisionist ideology, desiring seems like the most appropriate in context, no?</p>
<p>Desperados, i see where you’re coming from, but i wanna point out the fact that the first 4 lines or so where the word “wanting” is mentioned is all INTRO to the revisionist group of thought. the passage doesnt even really defined until the 5th or 6th line, so there wouldn’t be anything about actual revisionist theory in those first 4 lines, and it was intro leading up to revisionist though/explanation. as you said though, we both could be wrong, so if you’re unconvinced… well we might just have to leave it at that!</p>
<p>@sat the part that the country wanted to go to the war was stated by the revisionists who stated that the official explanation was wanting. BECAUSE the revisionist thought that the official explanation was lacking, they came up with their own explanation: imperialism, which you are talking about right now</p>
<p>also consider this. the sat is designed to trick you (they say its not, and there may not be tricks per se, but there are tricky questions). most would think that the definition of wanting is “desiring/needing” because those are two conventional definitions. i would expect that ETS expected people not to think of the word wanting as meaning lacking, (b/c most people dont at first sight) while really lacking is one definition of wanting. when you interpret it this way in the context of the passage (intro) it makes sense</p>
<p>Wait so can someone please respond to my previous post??
Wasn’t the one about the seahorse/sharks “universally recognized”? Because it said that the seahorse was “for the secret eye,” thus not as universally recognized as the shark</p>