<p>is it steadfast or idealized (abt his views on chemistry?)</p>
<p>pretty sure it was idealized; the author honored the textbook while her friend had more practical applications.</p>
<p>idealized. 10char.</p>
<p>^Tilgaham. I used the friggen m-w dictionary if you read my other posts. what more do you want? and no where in there is carefree and nonchalant; jaunty the definition. the definition is:</p>
<p>marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters </p>
<p>while the definition of humble is:</p>
<p>not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive
reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission</p>
<p>cavalier is a more extreme version of carefree to the point of being disdainful which the author does not exhibit (unless I read it incorrectly)</p>
<p>yeah. Idealised… Sandro also thought he was less educated or something. and on another question, because he couldnt light stoves etc. he was too bookish and not in touch with reality (or something). and for the louisiana dude, it was something morals… cuz it talked about religion, food, and attitude…</p>
<p>alright im done arguing. but seriously consider my opinion.</p>
<p>i thought it was humble instead of diffident or cavalier</p>
<p>and does anyone remember what the other options were for the one with shameful conceit?</p>
<p>i’m pretty sure it was either shamefully conceited or mildly ridiculous. i put the latter…</p>
<p>i put idealized for the steadfast/idealized question. </p>
<p>also, what was sando’s reaction to the author’s paragraph? was it “he thought the author had rigid opinions” or “he thought the author lacked sufficient knowledge”?
ughhh hated cr.</p>
<p>I put he didn’t have real-life practicality.</p>
<p>He thought that EF was too bookish and not in touch with nature.</p>
<p>i chose this: “he thought the author had rigid opinions”</p>
<p>I put he did not have enough knowledge. He only knew chemistry and nothing else and the other guy went on to teach/tell him about other things.</p>
<p>“I put he didn’t have real-life practicality”</p>
<p>That’s right…what were the other options for the idealize question…im pretty sure that idealized was wrong and steadfast was too…</p>
<p>ya i put he didnt have real life knowledge or w.e</p>
<p>how bout the one on the southern/russian authors where the narrator “did not care” for their writings because of black discrimination or etc…</p>
<p>what was the answer to that one? i kinda forgot what i chose…</p>
<p>the other 2 were way off, it was definitely either idealized or steadfast. Steadfast would mean that he stayed true to his beliefs, but his friend was able to make him second-guess them.</p>
<p>@recycleera; i was confusing between " inflated style" and " insincere something" and chose inflated style b/c it’s less extreme… don’t know if that’s true. anyone’s suggestion?</p>
<p>lol is it just me or was CR kinda hard?</p>