<p>thanks guys :)</p>
<p>i put antithetical to its motivating principles</p>
<p>Hey could you guys clear this up for me; I know I had 4 sections of CR so one had to be experimental, but I’m having trouble remember anything about it. I had passages about architecture, seahorse, cold war, japanese rice, and something else I guess?</p>
<p>Any vocab or passage description would be helpful</p>
<p>I got antithetical because it said something about them going against principles or something</p>
<p>I remember putting egregious</p>
<p>^^It was about following the group’s opinion and that was experimental</p>
<p>Wait did anyone have a passage with a guy looking through a microscope and looking at Rotifers?</p>
<p>For the experimental reading, what was some of the vocab, and was there any short passages? Any examples of questions? I know I had 4 reading sections but cannot remember ANYTHING about my experimental…starting to get worried</p>
<p>“wanting” has a second definition meaning “lacking”. looked it up on google. I’m so sad now because I honestly was going to put “lacking” (it made more sense in context; putting the gerund “desiring” or “needing” would make the sentence itself sound pretty weird).</p>
<p>it’s “outright condemnation”</p>
<p>to be skeptical is to “doubt as to the truth of something”. He was referring to a DIFFERENT THING when he was talking about being tolerant of it: he was referring to the actors’ emotions themselves. The act of pulling out those emotions and rehearsing them, however, was something that he fully and vehemently opposed, as suggested by his “caustic remarks”. He also “believed” that the text should be central to the actor’s performance.</p>
<p>When you “believe” something, you’re not really doubting it so much as you are advocating it.</p>
<p>For the rice one, was it to “present a new problem” or “underscore a predicament”? argh idk i was between them and i just guessed the first one</p>
<p>guys, on the cold war passage I for “compared to william appleman williams, later critics considered the us policies to be:” and I put “less self-serving,” or less greedy, because the passage says that williams said the us went into europe to expand into more foreign markets or something… I could have sworn it to be correct…</p>
<p>@tomatox1 nope cause the US expanded into Europe for economic gain. that was their motive… thus, it was more self serving</p>
<p>for the seahorse question,</p>
<p>it was whether the author’s last comments concerning the fact that she slightly disbelieved (childishly) the existence of seahorses until she finally met them (and felt like she was underwater with unicorns LOL) was making a disclosure, justifying a choice, etc.</p>
<p>I put justifying a choice after some consideration. Disclosure means “the action of making new or secret information known” and justify means “show or prove to be right or reasonable”.</p>
<p>The important part I think is taking into context. When you only look at that part–the description itself–the “disclosure” answer choice would inherently make sense. But the sentences before that are not really focused on revealing the author’s childhood, or anything relevant that pertains to such a notion.</p>
<p>The author was “justifying” her passion for seahorses, and what made them so majestic/magical creatures (with some exaggeration in my part). She even compared them to sharks and some other seawater creature (there was a question on it too), and went so far as to opt for seahorses as the truly wondrous creatures of the ocean. She also continuously uses conjunctions such as “and” and “but” in front of her sentences toward the end, suggesting a relation between them. Taking this into context, it would, in my opinion, be the most logical to be choosing “justifying a choice”. What creature is the best? Seahorses. Why? Because she had a child-like suspicion about them, that’s why.</p>
<p>@aklvkk i agree</p>
<p>Just wondering, Can anyone compile the answers that is unanimously agreed upon?</p>
<p>For the rice one, was it to “present a new problem” or “underscore a predicament”? argh idk i was between them and i just guessed the first one</p>
<p>
i am about 80% sure that Williams Appleseed or something really criticized the usa for wanting economic gain, while the second critic after him blamed Truman for turning on russia, who was the usa’s former ally, but did not mention economic gain…</p>
<p>I put “present a new problem” and my friend did too. I was also really confused :(((((</p>
<p>Edit: but then again…</p>
<p>“presenting a new problem” would make sense for both of them.</p>
<p>First question was regarding whether he could just replace a traditional culinary dish (rice) with a new one.
The second question was regarding whether it was possible to find a nutritious dish that balanced both brown and white rice (if I’m not incorrect).</p>
<p>The first question kind of acts like a pivot point of musing between the relations food has with culture, as well as how to manage two cultures clashing: the rest of the passage answers/solves the first problem.</p>
<p>Both ostensibly might be considered as “a difficult, unpleasant, or embarrassing situation”, but they also suggest new challenges that the author answers/gives solutions to. </p>
<p>I don’t know though. as;ldkfja;sldkfj</p>
<p>Can anyone go over the short double passage about actors and their emotions?</p>