<p>Sublime I think you’re wrong on a few of them…(or maybe I just am…which is entirely possible)</p>
<ol>
<li>manager- sure it was to emulate? I’ve read other explanations on CC. </li>
<li>annual return -dissatisfaction like glue said</li>
<li>crazy theories - they said nothing about the future and the possibilities of testing so I don’t think that’s right</li>
<li>persuasive logic? //Read other things on CC and I agree with the other things (don’t remember what it was though)</li>
<li>kid running out screaming - can you explain that one? I’ve again read other things…</li>
</ol>
<p>Manager = temper
Return = dissatisfaction, yes
Theories = i put future, but i didnt see the other choice of not being able to observe the phenomena in the physical world, which is better
Indeed = concede, no way does he think P1 has persuasive logic…hes writing against it, the answer is too extreme.
Kid screaming = extent to fool</p>
<ol>
<li>movie goers are no longer impressed by special effects when they learn how they are done…analogous to her reaction</li>
</ol>
<p>For that one, I put the answer choice that stated a comedian (or some thing) incorporates techniques into his/her methods. Something along those lines.</p>
<p>no, two was the misguided/idealistic one we are all fighting about. and then four was the one with choices military, drama, etc. it was about what passage one regarded as qualifications to be shakespeare. now do you remember?</p>
<p>and i dont really remember about number eleven, sorry.</p>
<p>i am sure this one is correct. he showed her how he did the magic tricks, and then the mystery “how do they do that?!?!?” of it was gone. same thing with the special effects stuff. if you are watching texas chainsaw massacre and you know that it’s all fake blood, it kind of ruins it for you.</p>
<p>For the one about which of the following was not a attribute of the perfect test, I said it was making plays affordable for the poor. While it seems something that a playright would do, it never explicitly stated it in the passage. Moreover, the author did point out things like jostling, and “Military Sea expeditions” that in it self is enough to prove military service more plausible then the other.</p>
<p>oh, i think you are right. i think the exact wording was more like “when evidence is conjectural, it is okay to disagree, but if there is proof, critics should reconsider their opposition.”</p>