<p>Its contrast. If a scientist goes to perform additional experiments to contrast the results of the pervious experiments. Even if the results are the same they are still comparing them… At least thats the point I used in the justification of my answer choice.</p>
<p>I don’t remember reading how scientists supported his particular eating the grasshoppers, but I do remember clearly that the next paragraph was about how the grasshoppers themselves were an anomaly (the last question asked that one, so I had to reread the entire paragraph)</p>
<p>If they used “compare” instead of “contrast” then it would probably correct. But just by the word choice, you should realize that the reactions did not contrast.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the question about why Nina was expected to be on the boat?</p>
<p>but how do you justify unorthodox?</p>
<p>Some questions for the grasshopper passage:
What caused some grasshoppers to become toxic?..eating other toxic stuff
How did grasshoppers get there colors?..staying in groups
In paragraph 5, what do all the organisms all have in common?..they all use coloration or something</p>
<p>what would make explaining evolution easy … groups of colored insects that are poisonous
What caused some grasshoppers to become toxic?..eating other toxic stuff
How did grasshoppers get there colors?..staying in groups
In paragraph 5, what do all the organisms all have in common?..they all use coloration or something</p>
<p>There was a part where she stood on the wharf, regretting her decision not to accompany the king across the sea.</p>
<p>Anyone remember the one from the indies passage about what new order means?</p>
<p>omg pulling my hair out on the unorthodox question because I honestly have no idea how it is relevant. I do acknowledge that contrast is not entirely the right answer choice, but compared to unorthodox it seemed more relevant. Can someone explain this?</p>
<p>new order meant something about the internet I think.</p>
<p>And I thought the standing on the wharf thinking was about regretting she didn’t stay longer with the casket. It was directly stated in the passage, I read it a couple of times just to make sure.</p>
<p>Did the author in the superstore story depict independent book store customers as having a higher standard of literature or something like that?</p>
<p>^yeah that’s what I put. I think…</p>
<p>It definitely can’t be contrast because the responses of the scientist and the lizard was the SAME. Remember, you’re not looking for reasons why an answer is RIGHT. You look for any reason why an answer is WRONG. Because of the word contrast, you should eliminate this question. Unorthodox may not be a strong answer, but there’s no evidence in the passage that says you should eliminate it.</p>
<p>…I don’t recall that being an answer to the question I’m thinking of…does anyone have access to the story?</p>
<p>Was this grasshopper passage?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/02/science/inside-story-of-nature-s-foul-tasting-beauties.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/02/science/inside-story-of-nature-s-foul-tasting-beauties.html</a></p>
<p>Nobody has even stated specifically what the answer and the question said. In the context of the passage and the question, contrast made the most sense to me (after rereading the question multiple times) at the time. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS REACTION AND THE LIZARD’S REACTION, but that wasn’t how the answer was worded…which is why I picked the contrast answer.</p>
<p>There was no evidence to assume that the author put that statement in there to show a new, unorthodox method of scientific reasoning</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/02/science/inside-story-of-nature-s-foul-tasting-beauties.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/02/science/inside-story-of-nature-s-foul-tasting-beauties.html</a></p>
<p>Perhaps someone with a photographic memory or something can specifically state what the question and answer was, not just a paraphrased guess</p>
<p>jpbred I love you so much right now</p>
<p>I don’t think you guys get that the part where he eats the insect is humorous. It’s not meant to be a scientific thing, it’s just meant to point out something silly a scientist did in the name of science. That’s all. No reason to overthink it.</p>
<p>omg thank you guys this is so helpful omg omg omg</p>