<p>Ms. Flowers demanded that she read the books out loud → stipulation (CONFIRMED)</p>
<p>From the text:
“She said that she was going to give me some books and that I not only read them, but read them out loud”</p>
<p>I put anticipate an objection. Can someone tell me why I’m wrong? My justification is that Ms. Flowers is anticipating her objection to reading out loud.</p>
<p>I put the one that says it was questionable because the stats suggest otherwise (don’t remember the exact words but something along that line)</p>
<p>^On that question, was there also a choice that said something like “the bee population is declining”? Is this not the same one as the questionable choice?</p>
<p>two questions:
Did anyone get empirical or circumstancial for one of the reading questions
what was the graph for the year and height relationship</p>
<p>yes, questionable because stats show a decrease in bee population iirc</p>
<p>So this population decrease choice is not the same as the evidence shows otherwise choice… :/</p>
<p>actually</p>
<p>im pretty sure it is</p>
<p>For the international test, did you replace ‘Nevertheless’ in the modifying paragraphs sections?(the one about maps ect)
I replaced it with ‘Moreover’ but I’m not sure if it’s right.</p>
<p>Houstonrep it is questionanle because evidence shows otherwise</p>
<p>I know, but I am asking if it the evidence shows otherwise choice is THE SAME CHOICE as the choice that said something about “a major decline in bee population”</p>
<p>satman…the question asks what does sousa and his people think of the " " . The Luddites are not neutral dudes</p>
<p>Can someone send me a link to the Google Doc.</p>
<p>Evets06 i took the international test, and i believe that i removed nonetheless from the sentence. Im pretty convinced with my choice though.</p>
<p>I would like the link to the google doc as well please</p>
<p>I replaced ‘Nevertheless’ with ‘Moreoever’…
I only deleted the sentence that told about the mathematician.</p>
<p>I would really appreciate it if someone could share the googledoc with me. Please PM me.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Can someone pm me the google doc plz?</p>
<p>@pwn2400, I’m pretty sure (as in completely sure) the question asked what the tone of the AUTHOR (throughout the second (or third, I forget,) paragraph - where he gives the opposing views of the two sides of the debate) was, which was definitely neutral. He desribes one side as “the party of doom” and also as “luddites” but not in a derisive context. It is doom because they think technology will doom music… And luddites, according to the sidenote, was not meant in the same context as it is usually used, but instead, as people who think technology will ruin everything.</p>
<p>If it was derisive, the paragraph would have been way more ridiculing and insulting.</p>
<p>lol… did anyone else realize that the international test was the same as the march us one.</p>
<p>what did you guys get for the differences between the two agricultural passages?</p>
<p>@satman1111 it’s always that way</p>