<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it’s not obsolescence. JUST BECAUSE the passage is about that itself, that’s not the reason why the analogy itself is there. It’s simply demonstrating why tourists would be interested in something that IS OBSOLETE! BECAUSE IT resembles something like a mythical dragon, which is old, dead, yet interesting.</p>
<p>Seems to me like a lot of you guys chose answers without looking at the QUOTED section given in the passage. For the one about the rocks, it is definitely tropical ocean based on the quoted section referring to the salt permeating the rock and such. The quoted section for the dragon was also referring to attracting newcomers although the overall message of the passage was about NASA becoming obsolete. When answering those questions you have to focus on just the quotations and not the background of the essay. By adding your own opinions and assumptions you get the question at hand wrong. Don’t make it harder than it actually is. Hope you all did well.</p>
<p>^If you just focus on the quotation, you see that it indicates obsolescence (decaying fossil…dragon), tourist thingy (fossil is attractive), and domineering (dragon and NASA thing is large) [3rd debatable choice kind of out of scope IMO]. The question can really have 3 answers depending on how you interpret it. I personally put obsolescence because the fossil and decaying dragon indicates oldness and the overall message of the passage was obsolescence. The other two debatable choices can be supported by the quotation alone, but doesn’t really adhere to the message of the passage.</p>
<p>i’m pretty sure the fossil question was about it being attractive to tourists…the spaceship wasnt being compared to fossils…the fact that it was TAKEN APART was.</p>
<p>one question was like: the guy implies that the “literary status” (something like that) means that…</p>
<p>and i chose choice A, which was “narrowly defined by experts” or something like that? the other choices were like “the people who believe in that fail to consider that reading for education is secondary to reading for pleasure”</p>
<p>also, what was the rocks one - right in the beginning of the passage - when it asked what the point was about rocks, and I said “even the most solid objects aren’t invulnerable to water.” Other choices were, “manufacturers aren’t always honest” and “no essential differences between natural and manufactured objects.” Both seemed wrong because rocks had nothing to do with manufacturers and the “essential differences” seemed kind of strong.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>EDIT: sorry, i looked back and saw discussion on my first question. But any other thoughts on this? Have we reached a conclusion?</p>
<p>wait, and the contradiction one with Dr. Dong was basically a contradiction to the statement that universities and corporations go hand and hand, so the answer had to do with the fact that the corporation ignored the university, right?</p>
<p>Bee123-
I also said it was that even the most solid objects werent invulnerable to water</p>
<p>i put no essential differences between natural and manufactured objects</p>
<p>Hmm smarts1,</p>
<p>Was he trying to emphasize that or just the fact that water could even affect the most tough things?</p>
<p>was the question with alistair to downplay a pivotal moment?</p>
<p>WhartonWannabe- ya it was</p>
<p>Could we resolve this rock question really fast…i gtg 2 church in 5</p>
<p>no essential differences can’t be right- who said water is the only thing that defines “essential differences”?</p>
<p>the hubble question was in the experimental wasn’t it?</p>
<p>for the passage about universities, does anyone remember putting the answer for one of the questions:</p>
<p>the university initially supported the corporation (or something like that)? </p>
<p>BTW…</p>
<p>[Books</a> At Transworld - Book extract from The Family Tree](<a href=“http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/catalog/extract.htm?command=search&db=twmain.txt&eqisbndata=0552772690]Books”>http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/catalog/extract.htm?command=search&db=twmain.txt&eqisbndata=0552772690)</p>
<p>Link to the passage about the Monroes. If anyone can find the others, it would be easier when we are referencing.</p>
<p>YESssss tytyty</p>
<p>THAT’S AWESOME!</p>
<p>The dual passages will be hard to find, though. :<</p>
<p>[Belong</a> to Me - Free Sample](<a href=“http://www.marisadelossantos.com/BelongtoMe/Readtheexcerpt.html]Belong”>http://www.marisadelossantos.com/BelongtoMe/Readtheexcerpt.html)</p>
<p>oh, oh ohhh. Thaat’s the experimental passage that I loooved.</p>
<p>the second passage is by hofstadter but i can’t find it…</p>
<p>I’m 99% sure</p>
<p>(for any of you APUSH people, maybe its in the “American Political Tradition?”)</p>
<p>[Universities</a> in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education: Amazon.ca: Derek Bok: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.ca/Universities-Marketplace-Commercialization-Higher-Education/dp/0691120129]Universities”>http://www.amazon.ca/Universities-Marketplace-Commercialization-Higher-Education/dp/0691120129)</p>
<p>Would it be an excerpt from there?:x</p>
<p>Not only is it right on with the subject, but it was published in 2004.</p>