<p>^I second that</p>
<p>Both buttressed and minimized are stupid and do not work!!! College board needs to learn statistics</p>
<p>^ i also put contemporaries</p>
<p>whodareswins i put that is what he got applauded for b/c why would it matter what he wrote, the passage was just saying that he was the first of his kind so it is logical that he would get applauded</p>
<p>i still don’t think collegeboard would expect us to have prior knowledge about statistics…so “impair/minimize” would be the best answer</p>
<p>also i don’t know how inconclusive evidence could buttress or support that notion </p>
<p>some say that prolonged exposure to sound can impair blood pressure regulation, however studies have produced inconclusive results that minimize the correlation
^however indicates a shift</p>
<p>I still think it could be the “good language” option because its most pertinent to his writing. The quotations themselves described the how good the writing was instead of directly praising the writer.</p>
<p>Aggravate/buttress was NOT the right answer.</p>
<p>First of all here was the original sentence structure: “Some say that prolonged exposure to sound can ____ blood pressure regulation, however studies have produced inconclusive results that _____ the correlation.”</p>
<p>Not even looking at the buttress part (which is a bit harder to interpret), “aggravate” does NOT make sense in context. How can something “aggravate blood pressure regulation”? If the sentence did not include the word “regulation”, I could understand this choice…</p>
<p>^^No, since that choice said “examples of language,” meaning that he used those exact quotes in his writing somewhere. It is much more likely to be praise from his contemporaries.</p>
<p>And as for impair/minimize, this choice is correct. Inconclusive evidence does NOT support a theory nor strengthen it; it only weakens it. Weakening a correlation is minimizing a correlation, not increasing it.</p>
<p>No, the answer choice stated examples of the TYPES of language. The quote talked about two of the different methods he used in his writing. Also, there was nothing to suggest that it was his contemporaries who were quoted in those lines; it could have been any critic from his period or the present.</p>
<p>mm… I think this was in CR. there was a question… argh, I can’t remember the actual question. But one of the answers was “vociferous.” Is that specific enough to trigger any memories, and if so, what was the answer? :|</p>
<p>vociferous was wrong. It was apocryphal.</p>
<p>It was apocryphal.</p>
<p>i thought it was examples of languages but now i think im wrong… it should have been the one about praise from the contemporaries 
because it mentioned accolades</p>
<p>Pretty sure it said he was “immediately accoladed” which would imply that it was his contemporaries that lauded him.</p>
<p>I put praise from his contemporaries as well. Anyone care to explain why any other choice would be correct there?</p>
<p>I still think it could be the “good language” option because its most pertinent to his writing. The quotations themselves described the how good the writing was instead of directly praising the writer.</p>
<p>Oh and it’s NOT the butress one, it’s the impair option.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, all of the quotations praised his writing, but the author’s purpose in including those quotations was to show the reactions of his contemporaries. That’s what the question was asking for, unless I’m remembering it wrong.</p>
<p>Can someone explain the “good language” option? What was the choice exactly saying?</p>
<p>what did you guys put for the german/french court systems and the new york/columbia questions</p>
<p>The “good language” option entailed that the quotations were describing the brilliant writing the author wrote. </p>
<p>But guys, you can’t praise a person as “fresh and new”</p>
<p>i think it was short vivid sketches and something involving veins</p>