<p>why would secret heart be undisclosed? doesn’t undisclosed mean known or like revealed.</p>
<p>[¡YO</a>! Julia Alvarez - Page 108 - Wattpad](<a href=“¡YO! - Julia Alvarez - Wattpad”>¡YO! - Julia Alvarez - Wattpad)</p>
<p>^ “the secret heart of that young man” i put secrets from youth/childhood or whatever the choice was.</p>
<p>berblez and afterparty i think those were both experimental! i had math exp and i dont remember those</p>
<p>insufficient evidence was the one about the last paragraph in apes, and inhibit and skew was a sentence completion, I think it was about a business man?</p>
<p>@charlie</p>
<p>The items in this list are just those that people have agreed upon. I’m not trying to argue anything, cause I’ve already wasted enough time on that.</p>
<p>which one was the writing experimental?</p>
<p>ahh ok. How do you guys think the CR was overall? How do you feel the curve will be?</p>
<p>Hey guys wasn’t that one that said to pick the word that picked what dinosaurs used to be viewed as “cynical”? Because there was a part that said when the guy was young they were seen as leaving there babies to fend for themselves as they left to go off on their own as opposed to the fact that they were loving and caring parents 20 years later.</p>
<p>I think the not yet disproven is “clearly wrong”, both are plausible. I remember what I pub but not the question or context exactly. I just remember clearly wrong worked.
Also, wasn’t the creative writing a split between useful but not essential and helps with peers? I personally put the peers one because passage one never spoke positively on workshops at all. He spoke of how good peer review was though, and passage 2 explicitly said that was what writing classes were good for.
I still think mired is muddied. I think both work there too. I hate it when I have to pick between two I always seem to miss them. Although the creative writing one I am very confident on.</p>
<p>@Haveyoumet
Leaving their babies wasn’t the only detail, and wasn’t really the point. They were slow, boring, and were named “bone-head”. Unflattering is a better word to describe it</p>
<p>@Divy
Those assumptions are the same points the author of passage 1 points out, so it wouldn’t make for him to call his own argument clearly wrong. He, instead, defended it by saying that they weren’t proven wrong just yet.</p>
<p>For the creative writing, I put neither, and thought “talented students probably wouldn’t attend” That seems like an unpopular choice, but I don’t see why so.</p>
<p>I thought mired was “stuck.” Anyway about the writing questions I have two that I am freaking about:
–the cuttlefish: People are talking about pronouns and ambiguity, but cuttlefish can be plural. Is the problem “information of”? I think that is an incorrect idiom. It is “information about” or “knowing about”.
–the Margaret Thatcher question: Is it no error or “earning.” It was like the person…sciences, earning … Is earning wrong in that it can refer to the Chancellor or the sciences?</p>
<p>@divy
Muddied means to make something hard to understand or become covered in mud. The definition of mired is to get “stuck” in mud. So I think stuck is the best answer here.</p>
<p>Is the “not yet disproven” from the apes passage.?</p>
<p>@things change</p>
<p>Im pretty sure those were no errors. Most people agree on those.</p>
<p>Yeah but didn’t it say “In lines 42-45 dinosaurs are described as _____ ?” In that paragraph it described how the dinosaurs seemed to only care about themselves because they would leave their babies. I don’t know you could very well be right I may not be remembering the question correctly.</p>
<p>I just think with the context when he says years ago they were muddied in ponds because paleontolgists… could make sense to say rather than years ago they were stuck in ponds because paleontologists thought…
I think this because if they are stuck it kind of conveys that they were inactive or something. I just thought muddied was kind of a descriptive word to add emphasis to the animal at one time being in a dirty pond to a more noble idea of them walking the plains or whatever. As he was throwing a series of juxtaposed sentences relating to “something then” and “something now”.
Also, in passage one he says that their view isn’t correct because the evidence “clearly shows it” or something to that effect (he brings that up in the last paragraph) with that in mind passage 2 brings up the conclusion that he just denounced in his passage so I figured it was almost surely clearly wrong. I am gonna go search for the passage now!</p>
<p>The book is called Dinosaur in a Haystack by Stephen Jay Gould . You could prob look it up online.
Personally, I wrote objective, but I’m probably wrong. I just thought that objectivity was connected to his original statement that he wished the current depiction of dinosaurs was based off new scientific data. Back in his day, scientists described dinosaurs in a “cynical” AND “unflattering” way. But it was all based off of scientific data. Nowadays, commercial industry has painted dinosaurs as “maternal” and “somewhat warm blooded” (or whatever the phrase was). I think cynical and unflattering both work (perhaps why they can both be wrong). But I went with objective just for cohesive purposes.</p>
<p>It was unflattering for that one. Whether objective or not, a description can still be unflattering. For example, it is unflattering to represent a bottom feeder in a pond to be a dark and slimy animal that eats the waste products of other creatures, but it is most certainly true.
Likewise, the dinosaurs were presented in an unflattering light with being “mired in ponds” and “unable to support their own weight” and “leaving their young to fend for themselves” and being “big, blundering behemoths”.
Cynical means you don’t want to believe something. I don’t think a dinosaur was represented that way. Cynical also implies you are talking about humans.
Does anyone know where the Kanzi passages are?</p>
<p>Oh I am sorry, I didn’t read your full explanation. That makes sense but I don’t think it corresponded with the lines where it spoke of the dinosaurs’ descriptions (at least in my memory)…</p>
<p>This question is so annoying. I just want to know how I did on CR so I can send it to schools.
[Dinomania</a> by Stephen Jay Gould | The New York Review of Books](<a href=“http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1993/aug/12/dinomania/]Dinomania”>Dinomania | Stephen Jay Gould | The New York Review of Books) </p>
<p>I think Collegeboard cut it down. According to this version it would be objective. I’m looking specifically at “Now they stride across the plains, necks and tails outstretched. In some reconstructions, they even rear up on their hind legs to reach high vegetation, or to scare off predators (they are so depicted in the first Brachiosaurus scene of Jurassic Park, and in the full-scale fiberglass model of Barosaurus in the rotunda of the American Museum of Natural History—though most of my colleagues consider such a posture ridiculously unlikely).”</p>
<p>Quick question guys:</p>
<p>1) For last grammar section question 13: Tour guide requested that… we did not throw trash or we not throw trash?</p>
<p>2) Rocks in a stone garden… some ****… gravel has patterns suggesting something or that suggests something?</p>
<p>I put we did not throw our trash, but it seems to be the consensus here that it was we not throw our trash. :(</p>
<p>i put “we not throw…”</p>