<p>I think they both conceded that there is some unreliability and reliability. I think scholarly collaboration is where they differed.</p>
<p>^ Really? The first passage’s argument was based entirely off the premise that Wikipedia’s core, its sources, are inaccurate because they are often websites and not books.</p>
<p>What did people get for slapping on new paint over old paint?</p>
<p>Creating a metaphor to house construction.</p>
<p>Conservation is similar to house construction in that reapplying a broken method (more paint) will not fix the underlying problems (the cracks will eventually show through).</p>
<p>Yeah you’re right, but they did mention that both have factual errors. It actually gave a statistic. Like I said, neither stated that the either was totally error-free. Like I stated, Passage 1 would probably have believed that libraries were better sites for scholarly collaboration. Why, in your opinion, is scholarly collaboration wrong?</p>
<p>I thought it was disparage a technique.</p>
<p>^I considered that too. Hmm…not really sure now.</p>
<p>sudaflower: it was oracular because his predictions actually came true</p>
<p>it was disparage a technique in my opinion</p>
<p>I also put disparage a technique. Can other people post their opinions? I’m also really unsure about that question now.</p>
<p>^ Same; the house construction metaphor seemed too literal. In an English class I might have selected the metaphorical option, but the SAT tends to avoid that. That’s what the vocab-in-context questions are essentially based off of; the reader’s ability to avoid making interpretations from definitions and rather simply applying the best literal answer.
It gave a statistic on Britannica, but then went on to state that the statistic was irrelevant because of the types of sources used. I didn’t choose scholarly collaboration because IIRC I didn’t see anything in the passage pertaining to this topic, either in support of libraries or in argument against websites. Nor did it explicitly state that Britannica was inaccurate because of reliance on books; in fact, it never speculated why Britannica may be as inaccurate as it is.</p>
<p>^yeah. Reconsidering it, I’m pretty sure disparaging a technique is right.</p>
<p>-1 for me.</p>
<p>And I’m pretty sure it wasn’t scholarly collaboration. I don’t remember anything in the first passage supporting that answer. However, the first passage clearly implied that library sources were trustworthy.</p>
<p>^ what was the answer i forget (on the britannica question)</p>
<p>I’m very confident that it was to disparage a technique. The entire passage was how the Western conservationists were flawed in their methods and that “metaphor” was used to determine the twilight zone between whether the conservationists simply changed basic methods of conservation as time passed or if they applied new modern techniques to old conservationist policies. “New paint over old”. The answer choice, using a metaphor for housing construction, seems way too literal.</p>
<p>yeah I think i put that the library sources were trustworthy because I don’t see how it’s scholarly collaboration in the second passage</p>
<p>Are there variations to Form S because for the circumference question it was 114 instead of 144 and instead 99 to 1000 it was 999 to 1000 for me</p>
<p>^ or maybe you read it wrong?</p>
<p>Do you guys recall the question about Morgan’s wife’s cooking style and how she would douse food with several globs of sherry? At first I put “wasteful mentality” but, realizing that the whole thing was an elaboration of how his wife was a bad cooker, changed it to “casual application” or something like that. Comments?</p>
<p>^This.
It’s highly unlikely there were variations, because most of the people who contributed to the discussion here had the same questions.
@ monstor344: Yes, it was casual application instead of wasteful mentality.</p>
<p>definitely i changed it to casual application too because in the context it doesn’t indicate anywhere else how she was wasteful</p>