<p>if i get an 800 on the reading I’m going to **** my pants… so far i read this whole thread and had none wrong. I got a 590 on reading last time lmao</p>
<p>As long as I hit 680-720 on everything, I’m a happy camper.</p>
<p>have we put the debate between the gently poking fun and sacrastically illustrating imcompatibility between two concepts to sleep? is there a consensus with that?</p>
<p>again there is not an unanimous decision on that one, but the majority would tell you (i am included in this group) that gently poking fun is without a doubt correct.</p>
<p>why does no one ever answer my questions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…it is not obsolecence. It’s the choice about being attractive to tourists, or something.</p>
<p>The reasoning is simple: the analogy drawn talks about how the tourists viewed the wrecked space shuttle as a “mythic dragon” as in, the old shuttles are STILL interesting. It can’t be obsolecence as in “we don’t care about it” anymore because otherwise why do tourists still come to it? The decline the passage talks about how the station declined and is now used for something else: tourists.</p>
<p>“Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when a person, object, or service is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working …”</p>
<p>First off, the station no longer worked as a station, but more importantly, it was not “no longer wanted.” Tourists wanted it. Tourists wanted to see the “mythic dragon.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, it’s “even the most solid objects aren’t impervious to water,” because the author makes that analogy. “As solid as a rock,” he says, is not something to be used so frequently (since, the author argues, it isn’t true). Additionally, who’s to say manufactured and nonmanufactured things are the same? I’m pretty sure he doesn’t claim that trees are the same as iPods are mineral ores are the same as leather furniture. The freaking second option isn’t even true as a general statement…</p>
<p>^ ^ ^ I second with both answers.</p>
<p>it was absolutely the choice about obsolescence. The whole passage just described the scene of decay - everything had lost its former glory…it was in a state of decline. There was nothing to suggest that it was still mythic. The passage suggested everything of the opposite!</p>
<p>what were the choices to the question with credulous?</p>
<p>Ya I mean I considered attraction to tourists. However, the question was asking why the author compared a ship to a decaying dino fossil and in the vary sentence that it was asking about the “starting phrase” was something like “Nasa is losing its luster”</p>
<p>The logical answer was obsolescence. The author used the word mythical to indicate that the program had faded from people’s interests so much that it was becoming forgotten. Obsolescence describes this exact reaction.</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly…however those small paragraphs were nasty this time.</p>
<p>can somebody please answer me and tell me what the other choices for credulous were…?</p>
<p>Do you know the question? because I can’t recall anything with credulous unless I knew the question.</p>
<p>srsly, no one got domineering for the rocket?</p>
<p>What were the answers and what was the question for the rockets?</p>
<p>i got domineering…</p>
<p>only other choice i remember for the credulous question was derisive…it was the SC about the greek writer being prone to believing outrageous stories</p>
<p>Domineering really didnt make sense in context of the referred sentence or in the passage as a whole…though. Obsolete was the best answer…period.</p>
<p>I don’t get how dragons are obsolete…They’re in movies, commercials and festivals!</p>
<p>But dragons are indeed imposing like the Saturn rocket was.</p>
<p>it was mythic. it was compared to a dragon</p>