Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: Typhoon Longwang on December 03, 2005, 10:44:05 AM

Title: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Typhoon Longwang on December 03, 2005, 10:44:05 AM
Passage 1 was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season
Passage 2 was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice
Passage 3 was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property
Passage 4 was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.

Cavemen

1. that tribal rituals were used in addition to cave paintings to gain magical power over the animals

2. Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions

3. paintings depicted in caves - animals (bisons discussed)

4. author felt about what the anthropologists were saying in paragraph 3 -  implicit approval

5.  something like why the pictures were painted in some place so inaccessible - cave paitings had other functions aside from aesthetic ones


Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. what would the author most likely think about the prospects, inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence 

4. author's attitude - imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"


Canadian law

1.author feels like the courts will get better, and glad about it

2.property owner means being able to do whatever you want with the property

3.which one of the following is most indicative of the fact that courts will be unlikely to rule always with the museums - even if native canadians did not own documentation of their property...

4.all the ones that litigated use the communal method

5.purpose of the first paragraph for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."

6.author says all EXCEPT:  private ownership allows just one owner, (isnt true, both communal and private can have multiple people)

7.question asking what the canadian native could/couldn't do with their property, and answer choices included "selling it," "developing it," etc.  And the answer was "sell it," but of course in a more elaborated sentence.


Embryos

1.what is meant by conservation of mechanism- researcher could compare the development of human and fruit fly eyes

2. diversity of methods by which early polarity is determined is surprising

4. What can we know about human polarization- it takes more cell division than...(whatever the question asked about)

5. What is the point of third or second paragraph- to demonstrate various ways that animals can polarize

6.difference for fruit flies and nematodes: fruit flies ready to go prior to fertilization, nematodes upon fertilization, or something like that...

7. What would the author be most likely to agree with?  A: Scientists will work on figuring out how human polarity is determined.

8. What is the most typical situation research from simple vertebrates could be used for humans? A: Studying visual apparatus.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Terabithia on December 03, 2005, 10:58:14 AM
The Embryo passage was the last passage for me and I had 5 minutes to complete it in, thus who knows how many guesses I got right!!    :'(
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: matts720 on December 03, 2005, 10:59:44 AM
1st passage was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season

2nd passage was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice

3rd passage was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property

4th passage was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Terabithia on December 03, 2005, 11:01:01 AM
First passage was easy. 2 was ok. 3 was ok. 4 was kinda hard. [q

uote author=matts720 link=topic=47855.msg885730#msg885730 date=1133636384]
1st passage was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season

2nd passage was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice

3rd passage was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property

4th passage was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.
[/quote]
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 11:02:15 AM
1st--Cave stuff
2nd--Gluck and poetry
3rd-Canadian laws/natives
4th--embryo

In the first section was the correct answer of what we knew about them was the type of animals, right? Not that they lived in caves?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:02:54 AM
I thought the last Embryo was pretty easy, the questions pretty much kept hitting on the main point of the passage: embryonic development uses different genetic mechanisms whereas later developments usually use similar genetic mechanisms.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Terabithia on December 03, 2005, 11:04:32 AM
yeah i had type of animals, bison, etc

 4th was just hard for me I guess cos I had 5 minutes and i did get to read it properly.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 11:05:41 AM
The tone question on GLuck--was it tacit accpetance or endorsement or something like that?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:06:27 AM
yeah i think it was tactit, she didnt sound too enthusiatic
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 11:07:36 AM
DAmn, I had that and then put indifference.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 11:09:00 AM
i put down tacit compliance or whatever it was
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:10:28 AM
I'm pretty sure it's indifference. Every sentence in almost all the paragraphs, especially the last one began with, or included "Gluck said/thinks/feels" ... the author was incredibly diligent about not taking a position on the matter. I also looked up "tacit" in the dictionary, and to be honest, it would be hard in LSAT land to see how there could be tacit approval in an RC passage, especially given the definition of tacit.

JSIA.

We're done!!!
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 11:13:15 AM
Well, zen, I hope you are right..cuz i put indifference, too. But I do think it was tacit now. Our choice was distanced indifference or something like that. And though the author never says waht he/she thinks, it's kind of implied that she supports Gluck, though I can't recall if the choice was tacit acceptance or tacit endorsement.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:13:48 AM
Yes, but the simple act of writing about a woman who breaks the gender roles of feminist poetry would suggest that the author does indeed approve of her and somewhat respects her work.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:14:30 AM
tacit approval
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:14:59 AM
I think that "it seemed like she agree with Gluck" because we, as readers agreed with Gluck, but I did not find one word that would lead me to believe that the author believed Gluck. Tacit acceptance, with no key words or clues is just too mysterious for LSAT thought...

Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 11:17:05 AM
Yeh, but if the author is indifferent why would she be writing about it? Although I did put that. But the first thing I did when I got home was look up exactly what tacit means in Webster's/
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 11:19:50 AM
I think its tacit acceptance, she indirectly accepts GLUCKs whatever by writing about it, showing its meaningful :dunno:
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 11:20:59 AM
I think it's tacit approval just because of the way the passage is set up--it is unbalanced on the side of providing information about Gluck. "Detached" indifference, I think, would have to be more overtly indicated rather than "tacit," which by definition is silently understood.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: lex19 on December 03, 2005, 11:21:19 AM
damn i thought thw question with tactic in it was about Gluck's feelings...oh well one down out of 25 completed the fact thati made it through all 4 passages is a miracle
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:22:24 AM
If every author that wrote about anything tacitly approved of it, that's a big jump to make... certainly people write things about which they are unbiased (one meaning of indifferent), and do not take a side. In fact, lots of people write about things with which they disagree, so that logic of "she wrote about it, she must like it/agree with it" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Also, it was obvious and cumbersome how many times the author bothered to say, "Gluck said", "according to Gluck" etc., even compared with the other passages in that RC section. She went out of her way to demonstrate that she wasn't speaking for herself in her conclusions, but just relaying a view of Gluck's work.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 11:24:29 AM
Agreed. You are winning me back, Zen. I combeed through the passage carefully to find some indication of acceptance...and came up with nothing.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:25:21 AM
Yes, but the author seems to discount Gluck's critics and talk more about the positive aspects of Glucks poetry than the things wrong with it.  "Detached indifference" seems like something only possible in scientific writing.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 11:25:29 AM
If every author that wrote about anything tacitly approved of it, that's a big jump to make... certainly people write things about which they are unbiased (one meaning of indifferent), and do not take a side. In fact, lots of people write about things with which they disagree, so that logic of "she wrote about it, she must like it/agree with it" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Also, it was obvious and cumbersome how many times the author bothered to say, "Gluck said", "according to Gluck" etc., even compared with the other passages in that RC section. She went out of her way to demonstrate that she wasn't speaking for herself in her conclusions, but just relaying a view of Gluck's work.

I think if she didnt approve she wouldnt have written about it without agruing against it
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:27:06 AM
But you don't have to be FOR or AGAINST something, you can just write about it. And, I think the biggest thing is that literally every single sentence in that damn passage referred consciously to the fact that "GLUCK said/did/thought/whatever" and that's an annoying way to write, and not the way any of the other RC passages were, unless the author is deliberately trying to be impartial.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:28:26 AM
are you implying that impartial is the same as "detached indifference"
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Terabithia on December 03, 2005, 11:29:16 AM
I went with tacit acceptance.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:30:06 AM
If you look up "indifference" one of the possible meanings is "impartiality" and detached reflects the annoying way that she was constantly referring everything back to Gluck, and not taking any of her statements on for herself.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gwenkern on December 03, 2005, 11:31:48 AM
For the Glück question, I picked tacit approval.  Here's why.

"Tacit" means silent.  It's similar to "implicit."  The fact that the author didn't take a stand in support of Glück doesn't mean the author didn't agree with her.  Rather, the author presented Glück's stance without criticism, using Glück's words to rebut her critics.  Additionally, the last paragraph was entirely Glück's opinions, without anything about her detractors.  I thought that meant that the author had a tone of tacit approval, certainly not detached indifference.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: hummer69 on December 03, 2005, 11:33:42 AM
I dunno, maybe you're right, its the combination of "detached" and "indifference" that is hard to swallow though.  The first paragraph seemed pretty indicative that the author approved of the way Gluck writes, simply by implying that most feminine authors ignore past writers while Gluck appreciates them.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 11:34:56 AM
went with tacit approval; the author did seem to endorse with what the poet was saying
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Tulane1L on December 03, 2005, 11:35:15 AM
Hey does anyone rememer the order of the anwers in the last rc section.  i was completly out of time and just guessed- were there a lot of As

and, did the questions about human embryos have anything to do with frogs :P
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 11:35:44 AM
On the embryo passage, did people think the second paragraphs function was to describe
1: many different types of embryo (whatever) or 2:two different types of embryo (whatever)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 11:36:05 AM
This thing could really go either way, but I do think it's tacit approval because to have to make a show of indifference. There has to be some apathy in it. And I know this is hardly an intellectual way to look about it, but the author's voice has no hint of "whatever, I don't care" about the subject matter discussed. I really don't know though, because there's no evidence for approval, either  ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:36:34 AM
Believe me, I had A then B, then A, then B ... it is a tough question, whatever the right answer. I just thought that the passage supported "detached indifference" better ... but I also see the points on the other side and could have just as well picked that, other than I found some evidence for indifference (i.e. all the references to the fact that it was GLUCK's words/actions/thinking, etc) and nothing to support tacit approval (but that's kind of due to the nature of tacit-ness!)...

So, we'll just have to see WTF LSAS was thinking.

 ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 11:37:17 AM
For the fourth embryo passage, what did you guys put for which of the following would the author most likely agree with?

it was the second question after the mainpoint...i couldn't find any...but chose D....weird language in D, though.  the only other choice i remember is A which said that the simpler the organism. the faster the fermentation or something like that.

sorry this is so vague.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 11:38:00 AM
Also, I just had the idea "DO NOT READ ANYTHING IN TO THE PASSAGE" drilled in to my head in all my prep, I thought the notion of them making a correct answer choice something that BY DEFINITION requires that you read into the text was just a violation of a basic rule of Reading Comp - but I wouldn't put it past them either.

 :D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 11:38:56 AM
monretih, i chose many embryos b/c the paragraph mentioned fruit flies, nematodes, frogs, humans
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 11:40:44 AM
as did I ! (many embryos)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: worstapplicantever on December 03, 2005, 11:42:31 AM
i put indifference for the Gulk question but i'm pretty sure it's tacit (see gwenkern's explanation).

i'm trying to remember more questions...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: imago on December 03, 2005, 12:00:58 PM
On the embryo passage, did people think the second paragraphs function was to describe
1: many different types of embryo (whatever) or 2:two different types of embryo (whatever)

went with many. there were 3 ways described for polarity to be established: in the egg, as in the fruit fly, as the sperm penetrates the egg, as in the work, and well after fertilzation and many cell splits, as in vertebrates.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gwenkern on December 03, 2005, 12:05:34 PM
Ok, here's some more questions:

1) the point of the first paragraph in the Canadian passage?  I put to show what property they're fighting over.  i was very iffy on this one

2) what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

3)  analogy concerning something about consciously showing the gender bias?? I put something about a bird and the air? 

sorry, can't remember.  thoughts?

I put background information for #1, and I agree with your answers on #2 and #3.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Tulane1L on December 03, 2005, 12:06:18 PM
cookiemonster
1  - i cant remember
2 - same, more than one individual can own property or something
3 - i think i put the same, it was just a complete guess, the only one i could eliminate was e on that one
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 12:06:39 PM
I remember the bird in the air thing, I selected it, but I wasn't too sure it was right, I think I selected it by process of elimination
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dinsosaur junior on December 03, 2005, 12:07:57 PM
Was therre an answer with something about context....the paragrpah was giving the context? like for the candaian one maybe?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 12:08:09 PM
I was very iffy on most of the main point questions
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: imago on December 03, 2005, 12:08:43 PM
Ok, here's some more questions:

1) the point of the first paragraph in the Canadian passage?  I put to show what property they're fighting over.  i was very iffy on this one

2) what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

3)  analogy concerning something about consciously showing the gender bias?? I put something about a bird and the air? 




sorry, can't remember.  thoughts?


I'm pretty sure I'm with you on all 3.  Not sure exactly what I put on 1.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gwenkern on December 03, 2005, 12:09:14 PM
Was therre an answer with something about context....the paragrpah was giving the context? like for the candaian one maybe?

Right, context.  Wasn't that the first question on the Canadian natives section?  I picked that answer.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: thelsater on December 03, 2005, 12:09:44 PM
I'm pretty sure it's indifference. Every sentence in almost all the paragraphs, especially the last one began with, or included "Gluck said/thinks/feels" ... the author was incredibly diligent about not taking a position on the matter. I also looked up "tacit" in the dictionary, and to be honest, it would be hard in LSAT land to see how there could be tacit approval in an RC passage, especially given the definition of tacit.

JSIA.

We're done!!!

I agree with you, I also went with indifference.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: muharulz on December 03, 2005, 12:10:33 PM
for the bird answer choice question, i put the building answer... it sounded a lot better than the bird choice.


its tacit approval as well.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 12:13:14 PM
cookie, i agree with the fermentation one on your last post.

i put context for the point of the 1st paragraph in canadian passage.

and communal and private property share the same EXCEPT: i put A on that one.

as for the analogy on the poet one...AUGH I HATED THAT QUESTION..and randomly chose b.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: thelsater on December 03, 2005, 12:13:22 PM
Does anyone remember their answer to the first question on the first passage about how the author felt about what the anthropologists were saying in paragraph 3?  I think I went with implicit approval.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gwenkern on December 03, 2005, 12:13:37 PM
also, I remeber I put that the simpler the organism, the faster the polarity development for the bio passage.

also, I remember putting that in the fruit flies, the polarity is already determined while for the ??? it's determined after fertilization.

I can't remember the exact wording of the answer I put for the first question, but it was something like the diversity of methods by which early polarity is determined is surprising.  The reason I didn't pick your answer is that I didn't think the passage showed that the type of polarity development was related to the complexity of the organism, just that different organisms use different methods.

I put the same answer as you for fruit flies v. nematodes.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 12:14:24 PM
Ok, here's some more questions:

1) the point of the first paragraph in the Canadian passage?  I put to show what property they're fighting over.  i was very iffy on this one

2) what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

3)  analogy concerning something about consciously showing the gender bias?? I put something about a bird and the air? 




sorry, can't remember.  thoughts?


I'm pretty sure I'm with you on all 3.  Not sure exactly what I put on 1.

haha i had the same thing on all questions....something about birds and wind....the thing they did not mention was that property deeds allow only 1 owner...and show the property they are fighting for...they gave examples of what the stuff was.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: lex19 on December 03, 2005, 12:16:41 PM
ditto
I was very iffy on most of the main point questions
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 12:20:59 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Tulane1L on December 03, 2005, 12:23:32 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?

same here
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Unsure on December 03, 2005, 12:24:17 PM
For the first passage (cave), that last question asked something about what the authro would most agree with.

answer choices said:

more technologically advanced than netherlands?
highly social customs?

jeez...i forget the rest. 

anyone remember?

I think it said the same tech level as neanderthals. I also remember something like having the first shamans. This may have been the one where I picked that they had a more secure or safer environment, or it may have been the one where I picked that they had individuals with specialized roles, I can't remember.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: shoppingaddict on December 03, 2005, 12:24:51 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?

that's what I put.  it mentioned something about complex social customs in the very last paragraph. 

yeah, it was something like they have highly specialized social roles, which i think is right because earlier it said that the art was so complex that there must of been some of them who just did the art while the other ppl supported them...
another good answer choice for that q was something like they had a harsher environemtn than the neandertals or something, but i picked the highly specialized roles one.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: muharulz on December 03, 2005, 12:24:55 PM
fruit flies developed polarity during fertilization, while the nematode dveloped it afterwards

the point of the first paragraphy in the canadian section was to show the context of what the native canadians are fighting for.

gender bias analogy.... i put the building one. it sounded a lot more feasible than the bird answer.

Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Jontor on December 03, 2005, 12:26:57 PM
tacit approval


Tacit approval for me too
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: muharulz on December 03, 2005, 12:28:28 PM
btw... tacit approval too
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: matts720 on December 03, 2005, 12:28:35 PM
I went with tacit approval, on that analogy one I went with the bird because it "unvealed hidden things" much like the "unconciously showing differences". For the first one, I went with the highly specialized roles.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 12:29:17 PM
ShoppingAddict:

That's the reasoning I used for justifying the socially complex/more develeped roles too.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: liberator on December 03, 2005, 12:30:58 PM
yup, specialized roles..

indifference..


for analogy, building.



 ;)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: shoppingaddict on December 03, 2005, 12:33:57 PM
in the last section, there was a question that was like "in line so and so, what did the author mean by 'conservation' of something or other..." does anyone remember this question?
i think i put something like...ugh i dont remember, it was talking about how its similar genes for fly eyes and human eyes i think i put an answer that had the word 'analogous' in it but that might have been a diff question
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: limz on December 03, 2005, 12:34:47 PM
hey guys, i just registered.....

i was pretty upset with my performance on that test. i had the test with two RC sections. i thought the first one was freaking hard for some reason, and i couldnt even get through the last passage. does anyone know which RC section was the experimental one?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: anglblondie1 on December 03, 2005, 12:34:54 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?

same here


I actually  did not go for the specialized roles, I felt that nothing really supported the use of such a strong adjective. It was never epmhasised about the importance of  role, I put they lived in a more secure enviroment, that would allow them to have tome to draw such sophisticated drawing, which was clearly stated in the passage.

Oh and I put tacit agreement too :)

oh the question was somthing about "consrvation mechanism"
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 12:35:17 PM
How about how gluck viewed the poetry of the past, or how it related to her or something,
I remember struggling between two choices with that one
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: anglblondie1 on December 03, 2005, 12:36:27 PM
the first one was the expiramental,my RC was 3 & 4, so three was exp. and ya, pretty tough
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 12:37:04 PM
in the last section, there was a question that was like "in line so and so, what did the author mean by 'conservation' of something or other..." does anyone remember this question?
i think i put something like...ugh i dont remember, it was talking about how its similar genes for fly eyes and human eyes i think i put an answer that had the word 'analogous' in it but that might have been a diff question

yeah i know which one you're talking about, i answered analogous too, i think it was something about if a researcher could compare the development of human and fruit fly eyes.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 12:37:24 PM
for conservation of mechanisms i put less or the same genetic material for all....or osmething like that...augh can't remember exact wording

for the poet passage:  what did you guys put "inheritance" to mean...i went with E imposition on poet to something something
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: anglblondie1 on December 03, 2005, 12:38:52 PM
ya for fruit flys i put analgous

for inheritance i think i put imposition as well
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: muharulz on December 03, 2005, 12:39:05 PM
oh the question was somthing about "consrvation mechanism"
----------------------------------------------------------

i think the answer to that one was how the genes werent wasted between the flies and the humans or some sort.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about how gluck viewed the poetry of the past, or how it related to her or something,
I remember struggling between two choices with that one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


it was either at the end of the first paragraph or the beginning of the second... it said that gluck loved the poetry through her youth... something like that.

it explicitly said that.

Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 12:40:31 PM
for specialised roles vs. safer environment it was specialised roles: the author explicily mentions shaman clothing, if he thinks he knows it's shaman clothing he thinks it was worn by shamans hence there were shamans which of course constitutes a specialised role. He also clearly states that if they were in a saferenvironment the art would've been for aesthetic puposes, which he then claims it wasn't
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 12:42:27 PM
for conservation of mechanisms i put less or the same genetic material for all....or osmething like that...augh can't remember exact wording

for the poet passage:  what did you guys put "inheritance" to mean...i went with E imposition on poet to something something

On that one I put "inheritance" to mean something like she associated herself with the language tradition, i thought Gluck readily accepted the male dominated tradition, which is hardly imposing upon her.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 12:43:02 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?

I did, too, for the same reasons--that was among the hardest qs on the test, imo
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Monreith2 on December 03, 2005, 12:43:41 PM
Agreed, Mike1948. Is the 1948 your birthdate ?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 12:45:12 PM
in the last section, there was a question that was like "in line so and so, what did the author mean by 'conservation' of something or other..." does anyone remember this question?
i think i put something like...ugh i dont remember, it was talking about how its similar genes for fly eyes and human eyes i think i put an answer that had the word 'analogous' in it but that might have been a diff question

"conservation of mechanism," or something-I put that it meant E) (I think) the main point of the passage, basically, that species could develop analogous parts in remarkably similar ways

There was another one, maybe the final question, that I want to discuss--the purpose of the passage..I put that it was to explain a surprising disparity
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 12:46:18 PM
ya for fruit flys i put analgous

for inheritance i think i put imposition as well

yeah for inheritance, i picked it put an imposition on the author



I put something else...can't remember what, but the imposition one didn't gel well with the tone of the passage
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: consigliere on December 03, 2005, 12:46:51 PM
tacit approval


I put tactic approval as well ::)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 03, 2005, 12:48:24 PM

gender bias analogy.... i put the building one. it sounded a lot more feasible than the bird answer.



on gender bias, i put the bird one -- unconsciously discovering things.  the building answer had to do with a facade.  i don't remember the question stem ... if it was asking "what would be analogous to finding gender differences when writers are unconscious of it", then i think it's the bird one.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
Agreed, Mike1948. Is the 1948 your birthdate ?

haha, no, i just pressed a bunch of numbers when registering.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 03, 2005, 12:52:29 PM
for conservation of mechanisms i put less or the same genetic material for all....or osmething like that...augh can't remember exact wording

for the poet passage:  what did you guys put "inheritance" to mean...i went with E imposition on poet to something something

On that one I put "inheritance" to mean something like she associated herself with the language tradition, i thought Gluck readily accepted the male dominated tradition, which is hardly imposing upon her.

i agree with mike.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: consigliere on December 03, 2005, 12:56:24 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?

same here


I actually  did not go for the specialized roles, I felt that nothing really supported the use of such a strong adjective. It was never epmhasised about the importance of  role, I put they lived in a more secure enviroment, that would allow them to have tome to draw such sophisticated drawing, which was clearly stated in the passage.

Oh and I put tacit agreement too :)

oh the question was somthing about "consrvation mechanism"

yeah i put that too for secure envrionemnt but im thinkin we got it wrong now ???
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: shoppingaddict on December 03, 2005, 12:58:04 PM
in the last section, there was a question that was like "in line so and so, what did the author mean by 'conservation' of something or other..." does anyone remember this question?
i think i put something like...ugh i dont remember, it was talking about how its similar genes for fly eyes and human eyes i think i put an answer that had the word 'analogous' in it but that might have been a diff question

"conservation of mechanism," or something-I put that it meant E) (I think) the main point of the passage, basically, that species could develop analogous parts in remarkably similar ways

There was another one, maybe the final question, that I want to discuss--the purpose of the passage..I put that it was to explain a surprising disparity

yes -- i put something with "surprising"
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 12:59:13 PM
How about the analogy question for the Glueck passage?  I couldn't find it anywhere in the passage (after looking for what was literally two minutes) and put D) railroad tracks not leading anywhere, having no idea whether it was right
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 01:00:31 PM
cookiemonster:

for the what the author would mostly agree with on the anthro passage: i put he thought the people had highly specialized roles...the other answers didn't sound good to me.

anyone else?

same here


I actually  did not go for the specialized roles, I felt that nothing really supported the use of such a strong adjective. It was never epmhasised about the importance of  role, I put they lived in a more secure enviroment, that would allow them to have tome to draw such sophisticated drawing, which was clearly stated in the passage.

Oh and I put tacit agreement too :)

oh the question was somthing about "consrvation mechanism"

yeah i put that too for secure envrionemnt but im thinkin we got it wrong now ???

yeah it's not secure environment. the passage talks specifically about the existence of shamans and tribal leaders holding ceremonies in front of the paintings. i recall, in fact, it talks about their environment being difficult, and certainly nothing about secure.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: The Name's Dali on December 03, 2005, 01:01:21 PM
in the last section, there was a question that was like "in line so and so, what did the author mean by 'conservation' of something or other..." does anyone remember this question?
i think i put something like...ugh i dont remember, it was talking about how its similar genes for fly eyes and human eyes i think i put an answer that had the word 'analogous' in it but that might have been a diff question

"conservation of mechanism," or something-I put that it meant E) (I think) the main point of the passage, basically, that species could develop analogous parts in remarkably similar ways

There was another one, maybe the final question, that I want to discuss--the purpose of the passage..I put that it was to explain a surprising disparity

yes -- i put something with "surprising"

what were the other answer choices besides "suprising" b/c i was torn btwn that one and another...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: shoppingaddict on December 03, 2005, 01:02:38 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: The Name's Dali on December 03, 2005, 01:03:01 PM
i think i misread the secure environment question....i thought it said that they had an EQUALLY secure environment
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: imago on December 03, 2005, 01:05:11 PM
I put:

Birds in the air
Indifferent
"Surprising" on the embyo passage
Imposition on the legacy/heritage question

Did anyone else get "implicit acceptance" for the 1st question on the cave painting?

Second cave painting question. . . what answer did the passage support?  I put the A-whatevers lived in caves, but i think i'm wrong.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: ugh on December 03, 2005, 01:06:07 PM
i put more secure environment. which i think is right because i think the specialized roll thing refered to them being artists supported by the community etc. which the author did not seem to agree with.

did anyone else find this reading comp. particularly difficult?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 01:07:39 PM
I put:

Birds in the air
Indifferent
"Surprising" on the embyo passage
Imposition on the legacy/heritage question

Did anyone else get "implicit acceptance" for the 1st question on the cave painting?

Second cave painting question. . . what answer did the passage support?  I put the A-whatevers lived in caves, but i think i'm wrong.

YES!!!  I had been trying to remember "implicit acceptance" but couldn't--that's what I put, too, though it was definitely a struggle between that answer choice and another

As for the lived in caves one, I put something else (though I had it narrowed down to that one and what I evnetually put), but I can't remember what
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 01:10:04 PM
I put:

Birds in the air
Indifferent
"Surprising" on the embyo passage
Imposition on the legacy/heritage question

Did anyone else get "implicit acceptance" for the 1st question on the cave painting?

Second cave painting question. . . what answer did the passage support?  I put the A-whatevers lived in caves, but i think i'm wrong.

everyone who put imposition on the "inheritance" question, could you please explain why?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Steve14 on December 03, 2005, 01:13:03 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 03, 2005, 01:14:11 PM

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

i didn't put transcending history, but i don't remember the other choices.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Tulane1L on December 03, 2005, 01:14:35 PM
I put:

Birds in the air
Indifferent
"Surprising" on the embyo passage
Imposition on the legacy/heritage question

Did anyone else get "implicit acceptance" for the 1st question on the cave painting?

Second cave painting question. . . what answer did the passage support?  I put the A-whatevers lived in caves, but i think i'm wrong.

everyone who put imposition on the "inheritance" question, could you please explain why?

i thought that imposition made it sound negative, but everything after the word imposition was more correct than any other answer, so i picked it anyway
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 01:14:55 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: nsela on December 03, 2005, 01:16:37 PM
You guys remember the letters for any of the Caves reading? (Q1-Q5)
As is clear... I skipped it and never got back...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 01:16:56 PM

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

i didn't put transcending history, but i don't remember the other choices.

it's not trancending social and historical whtaever, because the last sentence of the passage explains specifically how Gluck thinks that literature is ultimately defined by their social and historical contexts. i think the answer was E, that she acknowledged it was male-dominated, but the importance of it was its universal themes
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Cubano1983 on December 03, 2005, 01:18:28 PM
any C's in the last (embryo) passage??  ???
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 03, 2005, 01:18:35 PM

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

i didn't put transcending history, but i don't remember the other choices.

it's not trancending social and historical whtaever, because the last sentence of the passage explains specifically how Gluck thinks that literature is ultimately defined by their social and historical contexts. i think the answer was E, that she acknowledged it was male-dominated, but the importance of it was its universal themes
that sounds right to me -- universal themes.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: nsela on December 03, 2005, 01:18:53 PM

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

i didn't put transcending history, but i don't remember the other choices.

it's not trancending social and historical whtaever, because the last sentence of the passage explains specifically how Gluck thinks that literature is ultimately defined by their social and historical contexts. i think the answer was E, that she acknowledged it was male-dominated, but the importance of it was its universal themes

I put the same thing- the 2nd paragraph, I think, stated the universal themes, and all the other answers could be eliminated
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 01:20:35 PM

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

i didn't put transcending history, but i don't remember the other choices.

it's not trancending social and historical whtaever, because the last sentence of the passage explains specifically how Gluck thinks that literature is ultimately defined by their social and historical contexts. i think the answer was E, that she acknowledged it was male-dominated, but the importance of it was its universal themes

That's what I put, too
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: uscitalian1982 on December 03, 2005, 01:32:43 PM
Anyone put for one of the later questions about the ancient people that the passage suggests something about dancing in front of the cave paintings?   
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: ptt1983 on December 03, 2005, 02:30:26 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

It was specified roles...It specifically talked about the development of shamans and leaders....Where in the rest of the passage did it say anything about them being more technologically advanced?  It didnt
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Pizdun on December 03, 2005, 02:30:48 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: ptt1983 on December 03, 2005, 02:32:26 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure

No it was the bird...For sure...And if thats wrong which it isnt...there's no way its the railroad tracks...I'd put my life on that one
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Unsure on December 03, 2005, 02:32:31 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

The only thing safer environment had going for it was that the passage stated that they must have been more in control of their situation to have time for people to be full time artists, maybe "stabler" environment would be a better way to look at it.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Pizdun on December 03, 2005, 02:32:49 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure

sorry just read over my comment and realize how crappy i wrote it..i guess i'm burned out. I meant to say that all other answers had some element in them that was used to prove something...excpet  the railroad tracks
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 02:36:36 PM
There was another question in the cave passage that stated something about how the paintings weren't visible to many.

Answer choices had soemthing to do with:

only certain people were allowed to see and represented something they worked hard for? 

my mind's just about going blank now.
 

the Q was something like what suggests that it wasn't just for fun that they painted...or maybe that was the answer
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 02:37:06 PM
i think the cave pictures out of easy access was the answer about showing function...something, not sure
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 02:39:34 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure

the question was about how Gluck argued that it's better for gender differences to be explained *unintentionally*, not intentionally. a bird doesn't intend to show changing air currents when it flies--it's merely a result of its flight. one intentionally builds railroad tracks to run trains on them.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 02:41:17 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure

the question was about how Gluck argued that it's better for gender differences to be explained *unintentionally*, not intentionally. a bird doesn't intend to show changing air currents when it flies--it's merely a result of its flight. one intentionally builds railroad tracks to run trains on them.

Good explanation.  Glad i chose that damn bird! Personally the train answer made NO sense whatsoever
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: consigliere on December 03, 2005, 02:41:56 PM
ummm can we get a likkle more clarity here??
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 02:42:49 PM
someone working on a master list? lemme know or else i'll try to start one
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: fgd on December 03, 2005, 02:46:51 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure

sorry just read over my comment and realize how crappy i wrote it..i guess i'm burned out. I meant to say that all other answers had some element in them that was used to prove something...excpet  the railroad tracks
I don't think so, the one about the facade didn't really prove anything.  I'm pretty sure it was the bird, because it discussed poetry showing differences that existed (i.e. the gender difference) unintentionally, since the author said she wouldn't write as a "female" just as an author and let her natural writing show the differences that exist, even if not clearly seen...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: whatpenumbras on December 03, 2005, 02:54:05 PM
Here's what I put:

Cave passage:
Implicit acceptance
Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions.

Gluck:
Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air: The bird is doing what it does naturally and, in the process, 'unconsciously' exposing the truths that are not readily seen.
Indifferent--I think this was the hardest passage and much of that had to do with the fact that the author was so cold and matter-of-fact.  
Male-dominated, universal--I think there was something in the last paragraph that would directly contradict with the 'transcendence' answer.
I think I put the think about imposition...but I'm not sure...it was more about recieving the traditions/history of poets who came before (I don't think that makes sense)...

I can't really remember much more...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: thelsater on December 03, 2005, 03:01:10 PM
Here's what I put:

Cave passage:
Implicit acceptance
Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions.

Gluck:
Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air: The bird is doing what it does naturally and, in the process, 'unconsciously' exposing the truths that are not readily seen.
Indifferent--I think this was the hardest passage and much of that had to do with the fact that the author was so cold and matter-of-fact.  
Male-dominated, universal--I think there was something in the last paragraph that would directly contradict with the 'transcendence' answer.
I think I put the think about imposition...but I'm not sure...it was more about recieving the traditions/history of poets who came before (I don't think that makes sense)...

I can't really remember much more...


I agree with all of those (especially the authors' attitude ones because there's so much disagreement).  I disagree with the one about imposition, I thought the answer to this one was the choice about achievement, it had the word achievement in it.  This is a question I came back to and could not decide.  Of course I might be wrong.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 03:13:31 PM
okay my reasoning for the "tacit agreement" answer is really weak...

but i remember that at the end of the first paragraph the author said something like "gluck openly embraces" and some other word that suggested that the author thought that Gluck was right
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: tms31078 on December 03, 2005, 03:18:27 PM
okay my reasoning for the "tacit agreement" answer is really weak...

but i remember that at the end of the first paragraph the author said something like "gluck openly embraces" and some other word that suggested that the author thought that Gluck was right
the author was definitely indifferent! never once said anything that demonstrated he was in agreement. when i saw the critics i was expecting the author to dismiss them in some way, never happened there either, it was much like a science passage in the writing style, that the material was just being presented by the author.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 03:19:30 PM
Here's what I put:

Cave passage:
Implicit acceptance
Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions.

Gluck:
Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air: The bird is doing what it does naturally and, in the process, 'unconsciously' exposing the truths that are not readily seen.
Indifferent--I think this was the hardest passage and much of that had to do with the fact that the author was so cold and matter-of-fact.  
Male-dominated, universal--I think there was something in the last paragraph that would directly contradict with the 'transcendence' answer.
I think I put the think about imposition...but I'm not sure...it was more about recieving the traditions/history of poets who came before (I don't think that makes sense)...

I can't really remember much more...

isn't it 'tacit approval' instead of 'indifference?'

Oh, concerning the cave passage, what was the attitude of the author towards the third paragraph?  I put something implying he accepted the argument rather than was curious about it.  Similar question with native Canadians: was the author E) certain that it would be the case and glad?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: tms31078 on December 03, 2005, 03:20:26 PM
Yes, but the simple act of writing about a woman who breaks the gender roles of feminist poetry would suggest that the author does indeed approve of her and somewhat respects her work.
that isnt true at all!
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 03, 2005, 03:22:49 PM
Here's what I put:

Cave passage:
Implicit acceptance
Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions.

Gluck:
Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air: The bird is doing what it does naturally and, in the process, 'unconsciously' exposing the truths that are not readily seen.
Indifferent--I think this was the hardest passage and much of that had to do with the fact that the author was so cold and matter-of-fact. 
Male-dominated, universal--I think there was something in the last paragraph that would directly contradict with the 'transcendence' answer.
I think I put the think about imposition...but I'm not sure...it was more about recieving the traditions/history of poets who came before (I don't think that makes sense)...

I can't really remember much more...

isn't it 'tacit approval' instead of 'indifference?'

Oh, concerning the cave passage, what was the attitude of the author towards the third paragraph?  I put something implying he accepted the argument rather than was curious about it.  Similar question with native Canadians: was the author E) certain that it would be the case and glad?

re: caves -- i'm fuzzy on this too, but remember choosing between choices like this.  i chose the one you did.
re: canadians -- certain judges would respect them more in future and happy about that

Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Cubano1983 on December 03, 2005, 03:24:30 PM
any C's in the last (embryo) passage??  ???

Bueller, anyone?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 03:24:39 PM
well just to clarify, i think the consensus for the author of gluck is tacit agreement, with indifference as a close second. we only need another...15 or so questions, lets try to think of these instead of focusing on these old questions.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 03:25:04 PM
okay my reasoning for the "tacit agreement" answer is really weak...

but i remember that at the end of the first paragraph the author said something like "gluck openly embraces" and some other word that suggested that the author thought that Gluck was right
the author was definitely indifferent! never once said anything that demonstrated he was in agreement. when i saw the critics i was expecting the author to dismiss them in some way, never happened there either, it was much like a science passage in the writing style, that the material was just being presented by the author.

While I don't remember specifics, all I remember is that after reading the article I had a sense that Gluck was right and the other women were stupid bitches. Detached indifference does not seem right for the same reason that enthusiastic support doesn't seem right. But I guess it's a toss up.

I for one thought it was a no-brainer. This board has effectively ruined any confidence I had.

I could be wrong, but I think there was a lot of subtle language indicating that the author sided with Glueck
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: tms31078 on December 03, 2005, 03:27:04 PM
okay my reasoning for the "tacit agreement" answer is really weak...

but i remember that at the end of the first paragraph the author said something like "gluck openly embraces" and some other word that suggested that the author thought that Gluck was right
the author was definitely indifferent! never once said anything that demonstrated he was in agreement. when i saw the critics i was expecting the author to dismiss them in some way, never happened there either, it was much like a science passage in the writing style, that the material was just being presented by the author.

While I don't remember specifics, all I remember is that after reading the article I had a sense that Gluck was right and the other women were stupid bitches. Detached indifference does not seem right for the same reason that enthusiastic support doesn't seem right. But I guess it's a toss up.

I for one thought it was a no-brainer. This board has effectively ruined any confidence I had.

I could be wrong, but I think there was a lot of subtle language indicating that the author sided with Glueck
well when the author sides it is almost always subtle, but it is explicitly stated. in this passage it never was explicitly stated, if it was can anyone alude to what was said?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Unsure on December 03, 2005, 03:28:33 PM
I think one of the questions was "which of these phrases could finish the 4th paragraph." I don't remember which one it was though, maybe the canadian natives one.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 03:34:25 PM
heres a canadian one what did you have for it?

how does the author feel about the laws...will they change and does he think they should
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 03:35:57 PM
heres a canadian one what did you have for it?

how does the author feel about the laws...will they change and does he think they should

Covered above--myself and someone us think that the answer is that he is certain that they will change and is happy
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 03:38:42 PM
heres a canadian one what did you have for it?

how does the author feel about the laws...will they change and does he think they should

Covered above--myself and someone us think that the answer is that he is certain that they will change and is happy

i think thats what i had :)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: tms31078 on December 03, 2005, 03:39:30 PM
on the cave passage what was the answer to the first question. also, i saved this passage for last since it had only 5 questions and had to guess on a few, any Ds on this passage?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: aer on December 03, 2005, 03:40:01 PM
Okay, I had a terribly unfortunate misbubbling incident, I swear this would only happen to me, I was wondering if anyone remembers what letter the last question on the Gluck passage (q 12) was?  I'm trying to figure out where I went wrong and how bad it looks for me.  
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: merwindow on December 03, 2005, 03:58:46 PM
Re: Gluck -- acceptance or indifference.

My gut reaction was that the author was impartial
and kind of going out of the way to not appear either
directly or indirectly endorsing or rejecting Gluck...
so I picked the indifference answer.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 04:00:54 PM
so does anyone have a brief list of the embryo passage? im trying to put together a master list but i barely remember that whole passage, i answered the last 4 questions in a huge rush.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: kimmythegreat on December 03, 2005, 05:05:28 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: tms31078 on December 03, 2005, 05:08:07 PM
any answer choice D's on the first passage?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Finch on December 03, 2005, 05:10:16 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:13:26 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?

If this is the specialized roles inference question, it was specialized roles, i.e. shaman in the last part of the passage. The art on the walls was not a leisure thing, it was in response to their search for food & sustenance.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: monicatx on December 03, 2005, 05:15:10 PM

While I don't remember specifics, all I remember is that after reading the article I had a sense that Gluck was right and the other women were stupid bitches. Detached indifference does not seem right for the same reason that enthusiastic support doesn't seem right. But I guess it's a toss up.

I for one thought it was a no-brainer. This board has effectively ruined any confidence I had.

I did too. In fact I crossed off all but the positive choices. i really wasn't agreeing with gluck and definitely felt the author was. there's no doubt in my mind that it was tacit approval. it isn't the fact that the author chooses to write about gluck that makes it approval. the author presents the passage with a sort of overview, then critics of gluck, then gluck's answers to critics. and addressing someone's argument in the first few pages of the thread, using phrases like "according to gluck" and "gluck writes that" doesn't denote indifference, it's how you write when you're not plagiarizing.

i'm 100% on the bird question as well but it's been explained enough.

on the imposition question, i remember
one anewer choice talking about linguistic forms
one answer choice about poetic forms and traditions within a language
one answer choice concerning poetic achievements
one answer choice using "imposition"

i crossed off imposition precisely because of the negative connotation i ended up going with poetic forms within a language because it seemed less broad and i didn't feel it was justified for me to assume shakespeare and keats were or accomplished "achievements" just from the passage

i got the specialized social roles answer because of the shamans and the analysis earlier in the passage that the art was so highly skilled, the artists must have spent a great deal of time working on the art and been supported by the rest of the community. i don't see any support for the harsher environments choice in the passage itself.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: kimmythegreat on December 03, 2005, 05:22:25 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?

If this is the specialized roles inference question, it was specialized roles, i.e. shaman in the last part of the passage. The art on the walls was not a leisure thing, it was in response to their search for food & sustenance.

of course, im not disagreeing with the fact that shamans were mentioned, i am however noting that the answer did not ask if they had specialized roles, but rather that they had something along the lines of more specialized social roles, or greater specialized social roles that other hunter-gathers, which cannot be inferred from the passage. because no other social roles in other hunter-gather societies were mentioned. however, there was a direct comparison to the aug-people and the neanderthals enviormental conditions, which was the other answer. dont you think there is a distinction?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: iyl on December 03, 2005, 05:27:22 PM
The Embryo passage was the last passage for me and I had 5 minutes to complete it in, thus who knows how many guesses I got right!!    :'(

I was in the EXACT situation! When the proctor called 5 minutes, I freaked out b/c the passage had, what, 8 questions???! I blazed through them from shortest to longest question, but I have no idea how many I got right  :-\
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:29:02 PM
(http://crazy-jokes.com/pictures/fugly.gif)

Um ... WTF is THAT?!?!?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: greg556 on December 03, 2005, 05:31:31 PM
"indifference," I think, is the problem word. The author talks about Gluck's experience reading as a child, her views of poetry, every argument by a critic is responded to with what Gluck thinks.  It's hard to see how the author was _indifferent_ toward Gluck.  Gluck wins the argument every step of the way.  The feminists say this, but Gluck responds like this.  A critic says this, but Gluck responds like this.

I think it's tacit approval...approval because Gluck is always given the last word.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:33:15 PM
"indifference," I think, is the problem word. The author talks about Gluck's experience reading as a child, her views of poetry, every argument by a critic is responded to with what Gluck thinks.  It's hard to see how the author was _indifferent_ toward Gluck.  Gluck wins the argument every step of the way.  The feminists say this, but Gluck responds like this.  A critic says this, but Gluck responds like this.

I think it's tacit approval...approval because Gluck is always given the last word.

I'm still standing by the position that there's no way the proper answer to an RC question is "tacit approval" ... see way above, but I think you need to check the meaning of indifferent ... it has a connotation in popular language, but one of the primary definitions is "unbiased" ... that's exactly what the passage was. No sentence in there was that of just the author, without recourse to claiming to ONLY be representing what "Gluck said", etc...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 05:38:46 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?

If this is the specialized roles inference question, it was specialized roles, i.e. shaman in the last part of the passage. The art on the walls was not a leisure thing, it was in response to their search for food & sustenance.

of course, im not disagreeing with the fact that shamans were mentioned, i am however noting that the answer did not ask if they had specialized roles, but rather that they had something along the lines of more specialized social roles, or greater specialized social roles that other hunter-gathers, which cannot be inferred from the passage. because no other social roles in other hunter-gather societies were mentioned. however, there was a direct comparison to the aug-people and the neanderthals enviormental conditions, which was the other answer. dont you think there is a distinction?

kimmy - was that the answer choice? i kind of remember the option about the A people being more technologically advanced than other hunter-gatherers, which is wrong. but i thought the specialized roles answer didnt say anything about the other groups.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 05:41:28 PM
"indifference," I think, is the problem word. The author talks about Gluck's experience reading as a child, her views of poetry, every argument by a critic is responded to with what Gluck thinks.  It's hard to see how the author was _indifferent_ toward Gluck.  Gluck wins the argument every step of the way.  The feminists say this, but Gluck responds like this.  A critic says this, but Gluck responds like this.

I think it's tacit approval...approval because Gluck is always given the last word.

as we argued a bunch earlier, detached indifference indicates a degree of apathy that just isn't communicated in the text. now, neither is outright approval--but maybe tacit
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: HankQuinlan on December 03, 2005, 05:42:30 PM
On the developmental bio/polarity one there was a question about which one with the author most likely agree with...none of the answers struck me as particularly good so I choose the one about researchers will study the mechanisms governing early stage polarity in humans.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: kimmythegreat on December 03, 2005, 05:42:55 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?

If this is the specialized roles inference question, it was specialized roles, i.e. shaman in the last part of the passage. The art on the walls was not a leisure thing, it was in response to their search for food & sustenance.

of course, im not disagreeing with the fact that shamans were mentioned, i am however noting that the answer did not ask if they had specialized roles, but rather that they had something along the lines of more specialized social roles, or greater specialized social roles that other hunter-gathers, which cannot be inferred from the passage. because no other social roles in other hunter-gather societies were mentioned. however, there was a direct comparison to the aug-people and the neanderthals enviormental conditions, which was the other answer. dont you think there is a distinction?

kimmy - was that the answer choice? i kind of remember the option about the A people being more technologically advanced than other hunter-gatherers, which is wrong. but i thought the specialized roles answer didnt say anything about the other groups.

im pretty certain, because those were the two answers i was choosing between, and that was the reason i went with the harsher enviroments answer--i ruled out all other possibilities immediately and focused on those.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 05:45:07 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

i don't think they lived in an easier environment than the Neanderthals--because those were the two answers I had it down to, and I specifically scanned the text and it specifically outlined that the other group had a "difficult environment." Didn't say easier, anywhere, either, whereas shamans are clearly noted.

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?

If this is the specialized roles inference question, it was specialized roles, i.e. shaman in the last part of the passage. The art on the walls was not a leisure thing, it was in response to their search for food & sustenance.

of course, im not disagreeing with the fact that shamans were mentioned, i am however noting that the answer did not ask if they had specialized roles, but rather that they had something along the lines of more specialized social roles, or greater specialized social roles that other hunter-gathers, which cannot be inferred from the passage. because no other social roles in other hunter-gather societies were mentioned. however, there was a direct comparison to the aug-people and the neanderthals enviormental conditions, which was the other answer. dont you think there is a distinction?

kimmy - was that the answer choice? i kind of remember the option about the A people being more technologically advanced than other hunter-gatherers, which is wrong. but i thought the specialized roles answer didnt say anything about the other groups.

im pretty certain, because those were the two answers i was choosing between, and that was the reason i went with the harsher enviroments answer--i ruled out all other possibilities immediately and focused on those.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: vimat on December 03, 2005, 05:45:14 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure


I agree totally...railroad was the only one that matched the idea that gender roles do define the path to be naturally taken...
finally someone to agree to on that one!
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:45:30 PM
Well, zen, I hope you are right..cuz i put indifference, too. But I do think it was tacit now. Our choice was distanced indifference or something like that. And though the author never says waht he/she thinks, it's kind of implied that she supports Gluck, though I can't recall if the choice was tacit acceptance or tacit endorsement.

Well, here's the thing ... "kind of implied" is NO WHERE IN THE TEXT. I read through the whole thing five times, and NO ONE has yet to give anything from the text that supports "tacit approval" ... finding something to support tacit approval in the text would be almost self-contradictory anyway, and the ItemWise study material published recently by LSAC (supposedly the "authorities", you know, since they write the test) makes clear that "When you are dealing with a question that asks directly about author's attitude, you should asses the passage with an eye to whether it contains indicators of tone or evaluative terms." The damn repetition of making so obvious that she was just the vessel to tell about Gluck's theories definitely showed impartiality and unbiasedness ... in this case, "detached indifference" - see definition of indifference - does not always mean they don't give a flying @#!* at all...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dudette26 on December 03, 2005, 05:51:25 PM
Well, zen, I hope you are right..cuz i put indifference, too. But I do think it was tacit now. Our choice was distanced indifference or something like that. And though the author never says waht he/she thinks, it's kind of implied that she supports Gluck, though I can't recall if the choice was tacit acceptance or tacit endorsement.

Well, here's the thing ... "kind of implied" is NO WHERE IN THE TEXT. I read through the whole thing five times, and NO ONE has yet to give anything from the text that supports "tacit approval" ... finding something to support tacit approval in the text would be almost self-contradictory anyway, and the ItemWise study material published recently by LSAC (supposedly the "authorities", you know, since they write the test) makes clear that "When you are dealing with a question that asks directly about author's attitude, you should asses the passage with an eye to whether it contains indicators of tone or evaluative terms." The damn repetition of making so obvious that she was just the vessel to tell about Gluck's theories definitely showed impartiality and unbiasedness ... in this case, "detached indifference" - see definition of indifference - does not always mean they don't give a flying @#!* at all...

i also chose the indifference one.. i felt approval was too strong .. the author just seemed so 'bleh' - i hated that whole readying passage, i honestly felt like i was getting every single question wrong

i wish the experimental counted with the sign language and left hemisphere.. i finished the section with 10 minutes left!
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Mike1948 on December 03, 2005, 05:51:56 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure


I agree totally...railroad was the only one that matched the idea that gender roles do define the path to be naturally taken...
finally someone to agree to on that one!

the thing is the question wasn't to show intentionally, but rather talked about how Gluck said it would be more effective for gender differences to come out UNintentionally. this makes sense with the bird, because the changing air currents it shows aren't intentional--it's a result of its flight. Wheras one builds railroad tracks with every intention of running a train on them.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:52:35 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure


I agree totally...railroad was the only one that matched the idea that gender roles do define the path to be naturally taken...
finally someone to agree to on that one!

the thing is the question wasn't to show intentionally, but rather talked about how Gluck said it would be more effective for gender differences to come out UNintentionally. this makes sense with the bird, because the changing air currents it shows aren't intentional--it's a result of its flight. Wheras one builds railroad tracks with every intention of running a train on them.

Definitely agreed. It was definitely bird.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: goinCRAZY on December 03, 2005, 05:53:36 PM
so on the one about whether the author would agree with specialized roles vs harsher enviroment, didnt the answer specifically say (not a direct quote, obviously) that the aug-something or another people had more specialized social roles than other hunter-gathers(which were not mentioned in the passage, only one other group was) and then the other answer about the harsher enviroments--which were explicitly mentioned--compared just the two? so wouldnt that make the answer the harsher enviroment answer?

I recall the passage stating that the A-whatevers came after Neanderthals, and that for the As to be able to have the time/freedom to formulate such cave paintings with a great deal of expertise as they did their lives/environment must not have been as harsh as their predecessors.  Otherwise, they would have had other things to worry about rather than creating extensive and detailed cave paintings in unorthodox and hard to reach places?

If this is the specialized roles inference question, it was specialized roles, i.e. shaman in the last part of the passage. The art on the walls was not a leisure thing, it was in response to their search for food & sustenance.

of course, im not disagreeing with the fact that shamans were mentioned, i am however noting that the answer did not ask if they had specialized roles, but rather that they had something along the lines of more specialized social roles, or greater specialized social roles that other hunter-gathers, which cannot be inferred from the passage. because no other social roles in other hunter-gather societies were mentioned. however, there was a direct comparison to the aug-people and the neanderthals enviormental conditions, which was the other answer. dont you think there is a distinction?

kimmy - was that the answer choice? i kind of remember the option about the A people being more technologically advanced than other hunter-gatherers, which is wrong. but i thought the specialized roles answer didnt say anything about the other groups.

im pretty certain, because those were the two answers i was choosing between, and that was the reason i went with the harsher enviroments answer--i ruled out all other possibilities immediately and focused on those.

I don't think there was a comparative element in the the specialized roles answer. The question just asked what can be inferred about the A-people. I chose that they had specialized roles- the shamans, and the religious people. A lot of the other answer choices had the comparative element- more technically advanced, harsher environment. There was no inference in the passage about other people so i marked off these answers pretty quickly.

For the tacit aproval/indifference "debate", suppporting the tacit answer. As someone else mentioned, the organization of the essay has it so that Gluck responds to all of the criticisms but the critics don't get a chance to refut. This is presenting facts to show author's tacit approval of Gluck's position.

For the embryo questions- some that I remember and the answer choices that I think were correct:
1.what is meant by conservation of mechanism- analogous parts come about by same method
2.what is differnt between frog/fruit flies- fruit flies take longer to set poles
3.what can be inferred- scentists know how most simple vertebrates polarize OR there will be more experiement done to find out human polarization
4. Whatcan we know about human poolartization- it takes longer(or more division) to polarize then reptiles
5. what is the point of third or secon paragraph- to demonstrate various ways that animals can polarize
 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:55:31 PM
Definitely "there will be research into human embryo polarity" ... the text said something like it was a "delicious mystery to researchers"...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: nsela on December 03, 2005, 05:55:58 PM
With regards to the tacit approval/indifference question, though it seems like a long time ago lol, I believe the second last sentence of the passage was put forth as a statement not by Gluck, but rather by the author stating Gluck's view.  For me that is what made it tacit approval and not indifference.  I even think it started out with the word "Indeed".  Then again, I could just be making stuff up. ;)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Finch on December 03, 2005, 05:57:43 PM
i really think that the Gluck analogy one was bith with wind, because it said something like the bird exposed a win current without intending to. this is the same as Gluck exposing gender stuff without meaning to, or whatever it was.
the building choice had something about a superficial facade...i really dont think it was the answer.

also, i dont remember the question, but also in the Gluck passage there was something and i put the answer that said something about transcending history or social roles or something..sorry so vage but it had "transcend" in the answer...anyone?

I'm pretty positive it was the bird one. First, it had the same essence. This beautiful representation about it.

More substantively, the answer said the birds movement shows the invisible currents of air. Similarly, Gluck advocated that the social/historical different between male and females would show up in kind of an underlying, implicit kind of way. Essentially, not obvious, just the wind isnt obvious, and you wouldn't see it unless you see the bird moving.

Yes, that is the worst explanation ever, I'm completely burnt, but i'm very confident on that answer

that's actually a pretty great explanation for a dastardly question. of course, i may be only saying that because i answered the bird, too.  :)

the answer for this one was the railroad track. The thing in the questions was "uses intentionally to show" all other questions included someting which was made intentionall to show something. ie bird to explain wind, build was intentionally painted, but the railroad and the tracks has no intentions to show in it and therefore is the right answer.   I'm pretty sure


I agree totally...railroad was the only one that matched the idea that gender roles do define the path to be naturally taken...
finally someone to agree to on that one!

the thing is the question wasn't to show intentionally, but rather talked about how Gluck said it would be more effective for gender differences to come out UNintentionally. this makes sense with the bird, because the changing air currents it shows aren't intentional--it's a result of its flight. Wheras one builds railroad tracks with every intention of running a train on them.

Right, if the bird is representing the author, then by flapping its wings (writing in the author's case), it will unintentionally produce the air currents (as the author will invariably show any gender bias simply by writing without specific intentions).
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:01:05 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

It just seemed way too simple and so different from the other choices.

It was in resposne to that "delicious mystery" phrase, though. I'm quite sure it was the right answer.

 ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: greg556 on December 03, 2005, 06:01:59 PM
Hey, Zen--

I just did.  What do you think about what I said, that the author lets Gluck win every argument?  The passage is not set up like, "here's this camp, here's this camp."  Rather it was, "here's what Gluck thinks.  Here's one criticism, and here's Gluck's response.  Here's another criticism, and here's Gluck's response."  Gluck had the last word every step of the way.

_Tacit_ exactly because it was never said explicitly.  But did you leave the passage thinking Gluck was "right"?  I think you should have; that's tacit approval.

Two more points.  One, if the point of the passage is, "the debate on new gender-specific forms of poetry," then why spend a whole paragraph talking about Gluck's childhood reading poetry?  Two, if the passage was just presenting a debate about new gender-specific poetry, why was the whole thing about Gluck?  It was "Gluck's responses to criticisms."  Indifference means the author doesn't _care_ one way or another.  It's awfully hard to believe the author doesn't _care_ about Gluck one way or the other.

Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:04:30 PM
Hey, Zen--

I just did.  What do you think about what I said, that the author let's Gluck win every argument?  The passage is not set up like, "here's this camp, here's this camp."  Rather it was, "here's what Gluck thinks.  Here's one criticism, and here's Gluck's response.  Here's another criticism, and here's Gluck's response."  Gluck had the last word every step of the way.

_Tacit_ exactly because it was never said explicitly.  But did you leave the passage thinking Gluck was "right"?  I think you should have; that's tacit approval.

Two more points.  One, if the point of the passage is, "the debate on new gender-specific forms of poetry," then why spend a whole paragraph talking about Gluck's childhood reading poetry?  Two, if the passage was just presenting a debate about new gender-specific poetry, why was the whole thing about Gluck?  It was "Gluck's responses to criticisms."  Indifference means the author doesn't _care_ one way or another.  It's awfully hard to believe the author doesn't _care_ about Gluck one way or the other.



To be honest, like I mentioned before, I had A, changed to B, changed to A, deliberated some more 1/2 way through the next passage, tried to leave it alone, went back to it again before the third passage, worried about it, thought about it, read the passage again and again ... I don't think indifference means "doesn't care" - I think it means unbiased.

HOWEVER, I was a pencil/eraser stroke away from being on the other side of the argument.

 :D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: iyl on December 03, 2005, 06:14:23 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

The only thing safer environment had going for it was that the passage stated that they must have been more in control of their situation to have time for people to be full time artists, maybe "stabler" environment would be a better way to look at it.

I don't think it was "stabler".. the wording was something like "less hostile than that of the Neaderthals" or something. There was also a quote within the passage stating that only those who didn't have to worry about survival could have the time to dabble in art (rough translation). So... I picked "less hostile" over "specialized" and "more tech. advanced".
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: iyl on December 03, 2005, 06:15:56 PM
There was another question in the cave passage that stated something about how the paintings weren't visible to many.

Answer choices had soemthing to do with:

only certain people were allowed to see and represented something they worked hard for? 

my mind's just about going blank now.
 

I chose the answer that said the paintings weren't made for asthetic purposes (the passage later goes on to say that the paintings were used to help hunters conquer their prey, etc).
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:16:54 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

The only thing safer environment had going for it was that the passage stated that they must have been more in control of their situation to have time for people to be full time artists, maybe "stabler" environment would be a better way to look at it.

I don't think it was "stabler".. the wording was something like "less hostile than that of the Neaderthals" or something. There was also a quote within the passage stating that only those who didn't have to worry about survival could have the time to dabble in art (rough translation). So... I picked "less hostile" over "specialized" and "more tech. advanced".

OK. This is a classic distractor or whatever. It was DEFINITELY specialized roles ... do you think someone just played shaman, or magic man on Friday nights?

The reference to the art being for the bougoise is the one that the argument was countered AGAINST.

Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: iyl on December 03, 2005, 06:17:53 PM
heres a canadian one what did you have for it?

how does the author feel about the laws...will they change and does he think they should

i put not sure that they will, but confident that they should.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: goinCRAZY on December 03, 2005, 06:18:10 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

It just seemed way too simple and so different from the other choices.

It was in resposne to that "delicious mystery" phrase, though. I'm quite sure it was the right answer.

 ;D

but that was delicious mystery about MAMMALIAN not human in particular. I chose the human answer but I think it was the that scientist figured out things about the simpler vertebrates because there was a line about frog polarization in comparison to other vertebrate polarization which would only be possible if scientist know about most of the other simple vertebrates
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:19:51 PM
heres a canadian one what did you have for it?

how does the author feel about the laws...will they change and does he think they should

i put not sure that they will, but confident that they should.

I think that's a little off in the wording. Can't remember the options exactly.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 06:20:01 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

It just seemed way too simple and so different from the other choices.

It was in resposne to that "delicious mystery" phrase, though. I'm quite sure it was the right answer.

 ;D

LOL. I was 'tempting' I believe. I wish we could have partners for this test. We would have definitely gotten a 180. =/

I also put C) Scientists will try to...human... because the passage explicitly stated at the end of the paragraph that it presented a 'compelling mystery' or something to researchers
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:22:20 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

It just seemed way too simple and so different from the other choices.

It was in resposne to that "delicious mystery" phrase, though. I'm quite sure it was the right answer.

 ;D

LOL. I was 'tempting' I believe. I wish we could have partners for this test. We would have definitely gotten a 180. =/

I also put C) Scientists will try to...human... because the passage explicitly stated at the end of the paragraph that it presented a 'compelling mystery' or something to researchers

That's what I said ... delicious/compelling ... whatever ...  :D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: iyl on December 03, 2005, 06:24:32 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

The only thing safer environment had going for it was that the passage stated that they must have been more in control of their situation to have time for people to be full time artists, maybe "stabler" environment would be a better way to look at it.

I don't think it was "stabler".. the wording was something like "less hostile than that of the Neaderthals" or something. There was also a quote within the passage stating that only those who didn't have to worry about survival could have the time to dabble in art (rough translation). So... I picked "less hostile" over "specialized" and "more tech. advanced".

OK. This is a classic distractor or whatever. It was DEFINITELY specialized roles ... do you think someone just played shaman, or magic man on Friday nights?

The reference to the art being for the bougoise is the one that the argument was countered AGAINST.



ok, but if i remember correctly, the reason why I didn't choose the specialized answer is b/c it was worded "more specialized than other civs" or something along those lines. You don't know that the Aosdifodsifdf-whatever's were more specialized than other civilizations, just that shamans existed (and that they were specialized). But if I read/remember wrong, then yes, you may be correct.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:25:57 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

The only thing safer environment had going for it was that the passage stated that they must have been more in control of their situation to have time for people to be full time artists, maybe "stabler" environment would be a better way to look at it.

I don't think it was "stabler".. the wording was something like "less hostile than that of the Neaderthals" or something. There was also a quote within the passage stating that only those who didn't have to worry about survival could have the time to dabble in art (rough translation). So... I picked "less hostile" over "specialized" and "more tech. advanced".

OK. This is a classic distractor or whatever. It was DEFINITELY specialized roles ... do you think someone just played shaman, or magic man on Friday nights?

The reference to the art being for the bougoise is the one that the argument was countered AGAINST.



ok, but if i remember correctly, the reason why I didn't choose the specialized answer is b/c it was worded "more specialized than other civs" or something along those lines. You don't know that the Aosdifodsifdf-whatever's were more specialized than other civilizations, just that shamans existed (and that they were specialized). But if I read/remember wrong, then yes, you may be correct.


I'm pretty sure it only talked about them in comparison to other cultures about being harsher environment-wise, but just that there were specialized roles in their society. Period.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DisgruntledLegalAsst on December 03, 2005, 06:28:24 PM
wait wait-- the question about what the scientists would most agree with you put that they are going to solve the human embryo mystery????

is this the same question with one of the answer choices saying that something can be generalized to one (again ROUGH paraphrasing) but there was an answer d that said something like that...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: kimmythegreat on December 03, 2005, 06:29:26 PM
It was universal themes because Gluck only really mentioned that the tradition transcended gender.

Also, I didn't put specialized roles...though it sounds good now. Still, HIGHLY hurts it. I put that they were no more technologically advanced than the previous people...not a lot going for that one either though. Just figured because the entire argument states how these guys were so sophisticated before saying they were just crazy.

Though I do agree that safer environment was NOT implied...same if not harsher.

The only thing safer environment had going for it was that the passage stated that they must have been more in control of their situation to have time for people to be full time artists, maybe "stabler" environment would be a better way to look at it.

I don't think it was "stabler".. the wording was something like "less hostile than that of the Neaderthals" or something. There was also a quote within the passage stating that only those who didn't have to worry about survival could have the time to dabble in art (rough translation). So... I picked "less hostile" over "specialized" and "more tech. advanced".

OK. This is a classic distractor or whatever. It was DEFINITELY specialized roles ... do you think someone just played shaman, or magic man on Friday nights?

The reference to the art being for the bougoise is the one that the argument was countered AGAINST.



ok, but if i remember correctly, the reason why I didn't choose the specialized answer is b/c it was worded "more specialized than other civs" or something along those lines. You don't know that the Aosdifodsifdf-whatever's were more specialized than other civilizations, just that shamans existed (and that they were specialized). But if I read/remember wrong, then yes, you may be correct.

oh thank god, i was beginning to think i was the only one that remembered that, but i honestly dont know where i would have gotten it from other than the actual wording because i really didnt focus on the other answers after i decided they were wrong.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 06:31:01 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 06:33:43 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

I def. think that the answer was frogs polarize after conception
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:36:44 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

I def. think that the answer was frogs polarize after conception


AGREED.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 06:37:26 PM
more specialized (than other civilizations during their time, which was only the neanderthals that were before them)

also specialized because it was implied that there were important artists who did the paintings
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 06:39:14 PM
All in all, im glad that i went with my instincts.  I did passage 1, 2, 4, 3.  I could tell from looking at Gluck for a few seconds that it would be a pain in the ass, so I skipped it and went to the embryos, which is usually cut and dry
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:40:41 PM
@#!* Gluck.

Ha ha ha ... in a good way, I mean...

 ::)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 06:41:03 PM
I put that fruit flies already have the polarizing materials, but frogs get them through sperm.

Also, I put a really funny answer about "Scientists will try to figure out human embryo blahblah."

Why is that answer funny? I think it was right...

Anyway, yeah, there was one about the polarity being already figured (fruit flys) and frogs happen after conception, or something.

I def. think that the answer was frogs polarize after conception


AGREED.

Is this the same question as our ole 'delicious mystery' or another?  Is this the 'frogs polarize after conception whereas flies...before fertilization?"
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 03, 2005, 06:45:54 PM
delicious mystery pertains to the answer that he believes they will investigate human polarization or something
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:46:18 PM
This is a different question.

One answer is about human polarization another was about frogs polarizing at conception,.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 06:47:42 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Can someone pretty please respond to this?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 06:48:32 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Can someone pretty please respond to this?

I think D, but I'm bad at remembering the letter choices ... and can't remember all the differences of the wording.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: kimmythegreat on December 03, 2005, 06:50:05 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Can someone pretty please respond to this?

I think D, but I'm bad at remembering the letter choices ... and can't remember all the differences of the wording.

im pretty sure i went with that as well.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Finch on December 03, 2005, 06:50:49 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Can someone pretty please respond to this?

That sounds somewhat like what I remember...but the entire LR was obscured by one of the most debilitating migraines I've had in years that showed up during our 15 minute break.  I'm guaranteeing it affected my score...perfect timing.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: kimmythegreat on December 03, 2005, 06:51:53 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Can someone pretty please respond to this?

I think you're right, I put the same thing after spending like 3 minutes reviewing the structure of the passage.

Also, @$%& Gluck!

nicely put. i completely agree.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: The Name's Dali on December 03, 2005, 07:26:44 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Can someone pretty please respond to this?

I think you're right, I put the same thing after spending like 3 minutes reviewing the structure of the passage.

Also, @$%& Gluck!

nicely put. i completely agree.

what did C look like?  i remember they were both very similar.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: DonCarleon on December 03, 2005, 07:39:30 PM
"indifference," I think, is the problem word. The author talks about Gluck's experience reading as a child, her views of poetry, every argument by a critic is responded to with what Gluck thinks.  It's hard to see how the author was _indifferent_ toward Gluck.  Gluck wins the argument every step of the way.  The feminists say this, but Gluck responds like this.  A critic says this, but Gluck responds like this.

I think it's tacit approval...approval because Gluck is always given the last word.

as we argued a bunch earlier, detached indifference indicates a degree of apathy that just isn't communicated in the text. now, neither is outright approval--but maybe tacit

There was not one damn adjective used in the entire passage to describe the critics, Gluck, or either of their respective views.  If there were, then maybe there could have been some sort of tacit approval or disapproval... Nothing was implied. 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 03, 2005, 07:56:34 PM
"indifference," I think, is the problem word. The author talks about Gluck's experience reading as a child, her views of poetry, every argument by a critic is responded to with what Gluck thinks.  It's hard to see how the author was _indifferent_ toward Gluck.  Gluck wins the argument every step of the way.  The feminists say this, but Gluck responds like this.  A critic says this, but Gluck responds like this.

I think it's tacit approval...approval because Gluck is always given the last word.

as we argued a bunch earlier, detached indifference indicates a degree of apathy that just isn't communicated in the text. now, neither is outright approval--but maybe tacit

There was not one damn adjective used in the entire passage to describe the critics, Gluck, or either of their respective views.  If there were, then maybe there could have been some sort of tacit approval or disapproval... Nothing was implied. 

INDIFFERENCE DOES NOT MEAN APATHY by necessity. That is one of several meanings, including UNBIASED.

The flagrant lack of adjectives or even expressive connection words, and the repeated explicit references assigning everything to Gluck, it was definitely detached, not tacit approval. But, around and around we go...

 ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Brett McKay on December 03, 2005, 08:22:40 PM
I'm looking for an updated list
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: ep on December 03, 2005, 08:25:15 PM
What was the "main point" (or was it "purpose") of the Glueck passage?  I remember initially putting C and then going with D, because C didn't refer directly to poetry but instead to art.  D was something along the lines of "In spite of criticisms leveled against her work, Glueck.....gender differences....revealed...unc onscious"

Agree. I put D as well...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 03, 2005, 09:06:17 PM
purpose of the first question for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: thelsater on December 03, 2005, 09:08:14 PM
purpose of the first question for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."?

That's what I put...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Brett McKay on December 03, 2005, 09:24:17 PM
purpose of the first question for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."?

agree
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 03, 2005, 09:38:22 PM
someone want to put a list together...? please
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: extraneous on December 04, 2005, 02:26:28 AM
I'll weigh in on the detached indifference / tacit approval debate feeling almost positive that tacit approval is right here.

How we look at the question depends on the definition of indifference. People have been arguing that indifference can be construed as unbiased as opposed to apathy. I don't think that definition can work in this case because indifference is qualified by detached (which also implies an aloof, uncaring, apathetic quality). Indifference on its own could mean unbiased, but the combination of the words "detached indifference" definitely approximates apathy as opposed to unbiasedness. If I talk about my friends with detached indifference I think that implies that I'm speaking about them in an unsympathetic, uncaring way, not that I am speaking honestly or being fair.

I also think tacit approval is well supported when you put together a lot of the reasons people have mentioned:
 
1) The author allows Gluck the last word, and in organizing the passage devotes much more time to explaining and defending her views then that of her critics. In addition, the author focuses on Gluck's personal position, rather than the debate itself over female poets and tradition.

2) There are some subtle language indicators. Someone mentioned earlier how the author refers to Gluck positively saying she "openly embraces" the universal tradition, that others "ignore and deny." I thought the author had some other subtle references like that. Can't remember though. In combination with the first reason I think it makes the reader sympathize more with Gluck than her critics or anyone else.

3)  And lastly the one we seem to be arguing about most, concerns the explicit references of "Gluck says this" and "Gluck thinks that." I actually think this is completely compatible with tacit approval. Being exhausted after 20 hours, the only way I can explain it is by a bad example from a terrible movie. In the Waterboy (yeah you heard right), Adam Sandler's character responds in the classroom to ideas he disagrees with "Mama says this" and "Well Mama says that," etc. The fact that he is reporting what his mama said doesn't make him unbiased, in fact its pretty clear he "tacitly approves" of everything his mama said because he thinks bringing it up is sufficient to outweigh any counter-evidence. In this case the author thinks it’s sufficient to counter the critics by saying "well Gluck says this" and then he never brings up the critics again. I know its bad example, but i don't think there is any contradiction between the explicit references and tacit approval.

The question I'm really stumped on is the Canadian one concerning how the author felt. I remember two similar answers, something like:

the author feels certain courts will change, and HOPES it will occur.
the author feels certain courts will change, and thinks it SHOULD occur

I picked the one with should, but was really confused. Anyone think one was right over the other, or were they both wrong?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 04, 2005, 05:25:36 AM
I'll weigh in on the detached indifference / tacit approval debate feeling almost positive that tacit approval is right here.

How we look at the question depends on the definition of indifference. People have been arguing that indifference can be construed as unbiased as opposed to apathy. I don't think that definition can work in this case because indifference is qualified by detached (which also implies an aloof, uncaring, apathetic quality). Indifference on its own could mean unbiased, but the combination of the words "detached indifference" definitely approximates apathy as opposed to unbiasedness. If I talk about my friends with detached indifference I think that implies that I'm speaking about them in an unsympathetic, uncaring way, not that I am speaking honestly or being fair.

I also think tacit approval is well supported when you put together a lot of the reasons people have mentioned:
 
1) The author allows Gluck the last word, and in organizing the passage devotes much more time to explaining and defending her views then that of her critics. In addition, the author focuses on Gluck's personal position, rather than the debate itself over female poets and tradition.

2) There are some subtle language indicators. Someone mentioned earlier how the author refers to Gluck positively saying she "openly embraces" the universal tradition, that others "ignore and deny." I thought the author had some other subtle references like that. Can't remember though. In combination with the first reason I think it makes the reader sympathize more with Gluck than her critics or anyone else.

3)  And lastly the one we seem to be arguing about most, concerns the explicit references of "Gluck says this" and "Gluck thinks that." I actually think this is completely compatible with tacit approval. Being exhausted after 20 hours, the only way I can explain it is by a bad example from a terrible movie. In the Waterboy (yeah you heard right), Adam Sandler's character responds in the classroom to ideas he disagrees with "Mama says this" and "Well Mama says that," etc. The fact that he is reporting what his mama said doesn't make him unbiased, in fact its pretty clear he "tacitly approves" of everything his mama said because he thinks bringing it up is sufficient to outweigh any counter-evidence. In this case the author thinks it’s sufficient to counter the critics by saying "well Gluck says this" and then he never brings up the critics again. I know its bad example, but i don't think there is any contradiction between the explicit references and tacit approval.

The question I'm really stumped on is the Canadian one concerning how the author felt. I remember two similar answers, something like:

the author feels certain courts will change, and HOPES it will occur.
the author feels certain courts will change, and thinks it SHOULD occur

I picked the one with should, but was really confused. Anyone think one was right over the other, or were they both wrong?


That's the funniest and more esoteric Waterboy reference that has ever been made.

(I think it was the one about should ... clearly that author was on the side of the communal property...)

 :D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: monicatx on December 04, 2005, 08:18:08 AM
I'll weigh in on the detached indifference / tacit approval debate feeling almost positive that tacit approval is right here.

How we look at the question depends on the definition of indifference. People have been arguing that indifference can be construed as unbiased as opposed to apathy. I don't think that definition can work in this case because indifference is qualified by detached (which also implies an aloof, uncaring, apathetic quality). Indifference on its own could mean unbiased, but the combination of the words "detached indifference" definitely approximates apathy as opposed to unbiasedness. If I talk about my friends with detached indifference I think that implies that I'm speaking about them in an unsympathetic, uncaring way, not that I am speaking honestly or being fair.

I also think tacit approval is well supported when you put together a lot of the reasons people have mentioned:
 
1) The author allows Gluck the last word, and in organizing the passage devotes much more time to explaining and defending her views then that of her critics. In addition, the author focuses on Gluck's personal position, rather than the debate itself over female poets and tradition.

2) There are some subtle language indicators. Someone mentioned earlier how the author refers to Gluck positively saying she "openly embraces" the universal tradition, that others "ignore and deny." I thought the author had some other subtle references like that. Can't remember though. In combination with the first reason I think it makes the reader sympathize more with Gluck than her critics or anyone else.

3)  And lastly the one we seem to be arguing about most, concerns the explicit references of "Gluck says this" and "Gluck thinks that." I actually think this is completely compatible with tacit approval. Being exhausted after 20 hours, the only way I can explain it is by a bad example from a terrible movie. In the Waterboy (yeah you heard right), Adam Sandler's character responds in the classroom to ideas he disagrees with "Mama says this" and "Well Mama says that," etc. The fact that he is reporting what his mama said doesn't make him unbiased, in fact its pretty clear he "tacitly approves" of everything his mama said because he thinks bringing it up is sufficient to outweigh any counter-evidence. In this case the author thinks it’s sufficient to counter the critics by saying "well Gluck says this" and then he never brings up the critics again. I know its bad example, but i don't think there is any contradiction between the explicit references and tacit approval.

The question I'm really stumped on is the Canadian one concerning how the author felt. I remember two similar answers, something like:

the author feels certain courts will change, and HOPES it will occur.
the author feels certain courts will change, and thinks it SHOULD occur

I picked the one with should, but was really confused. Anyone think one was right over the other, or were they both wrong?


That's the funniest and more esoteric Waterboy reference that has ever been made.

(I think it was the one about should ... clearly that author was on the side of the communal property...)

 :D

i agree, it was should.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Wolvie on December 04, 2005, 08:35:53 AM
dont know if i already posted here but there's a master RC list, check it out. only need 4 more.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sck on December 04, 2005, 09:01:24 AM
Honestly, the thing that bugged me most about this RC section was that I really felt like I'd read some of the passages before. Especially the canadian law one. It's so similar to one I saw in another test (June?) with the native tribes in Canada. At least to me.

Actually, I saw similar questions all over the place. It was wild.

I was pretty stuck on how the canadian author felt, too. It's one of the ones I marked and went back to. I really, really hate the questions that ask you how the author feels.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 04, 2005, 09:03:40 AM
Honestly, the thing that bugged me most about this RC section was that I really felt like I'd read some of the passages before. Especially the canadian law one. It's so similar to one I saw in another test (June?) with the native tribes in Canada. At least to me.

Actually, I saw similar questions all over the place. It was wild.

I was pretty stuck on how the canadian author felt, too. It's one of the ones I marked and went back to. I really, really hate the questions that ask you how the author feels.

I thought the Canadian author was "hesitant approval" or something like that, because she consciously chose "probably" and "most likely" and "perhaps" all in the last paragraph when talking about the conclusions of what the art was for.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 04, 2005, 09:10:08 AM
Honestly, the thing that bugged me most about this RC section was that I really felt like I'd read some of the passages before. Especially the canadian law one. It's so similar to one I saw in another test (June?) with the native tribes in Canada. At least to me.

Actually, I saw similar questions all over the place. It was wild.

I was pretty stuck on how the canadian author felt, too. It's one of the ones I marked and went back to. I really, really hate the questions that ask you how the author feels.

I thought the Canadian author was "hesitant approval" or something like that, because she consciously chose "probably" and "most likely" and "perhaps" all in the last paragraph when talking about the conclusions of what the art was for.

Do you remember other answer choices that were available?  I'm trying to figure out if this is the question concerning the author's feelings concerning the future prospects of native Canadian claims.  For the record, zen, I almost want "indifferent" for the Glueck one to be right just so you can get some sleep over the next three weeks :-) (I chose 'tacit approval') 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Steve14 on December 04, 2005, 09:16:12 AM
Passage 1 was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season
Passage 2 was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice
Passage 3 was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property
Passage 4 was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.

Cavemen

1. that tribal rituals were used in addition to cave paintings to gain magical power over the animals

2. Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions

3. paintings depicted in caves - animals (bisons discussed)

4. author felt about what the anthropologists were saying in paragraph 3 -  implicit approval

5.

Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence

4. imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"


Canadian law

1.author feels like the courts will get better, and glad about it

2.property owner means being able to do whatever you want with the property

3.which one of the following is most indicative of the fact that courts will be unlikely to rule always with the museums - even if native canadians did not own documentation of their property...

4.all the ones that litigated use the communal method

5.purpose of the first paragraph for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."

6.what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

7.


Embryos

1.what is meant by conservation of mechanism- researcher could compare the development of human and fruit fly eyes

2. diversity of methods by which early polarity is determined is surprising

4. What can we know about human polarization- it takes more cell division than...(whatever the question asked about)

5. What is the point of third or second paragraph- to demonstrate various ways that animals can polarize

6.difference for fruit flies and nematodes: fruit flies ready to go prior to fertilization, nematodes upon fertilization, or something like that...

7.

8.



************************************************************************************************

If anyone reconstructs the passages in more detail or the questions for each passage just PM me and I'll modify this post.  I didn't take the test so I'll need your help.


I really think that #3 and #4 that you have listed for the Gluck passage are the same question. The question about what her "inheritance" was, I put the answer about the great work passed down by male writers, writers in general, something like that. However, I debated that answer quite a bit, and I do recall there being a choice that stated that the inheritance was the imposition of the male dominated bla bla bla on her. Inevitably, I did not choose that answer, because the word "imposition" was way too strong. The purpose of the passage is to show how Gluck seemingly embraced the male dominated nature of poetry as part of its beautiful history and a narrative. Critics in the passage would use the word imposition, but definitely not Gluck.

I also remember an answer on one of those questions that said something about social and historical transcendence. I recall liking it originally, but then when I read the last sentence, it directly contradicted the statement. The answer said something about poetry ignoring society and history, and directly in the passage it was stated that poetry was sensitive to those two things.

Again, I think that answer was also a choice for the Inheritance question. I don't know what question is missing, perhaps a gimme we are forgetting, but if I had to stake my life on it (which thankfully I do not), I would say that 3 and 4 are the same question, and basically we have it separated because this question in particular people had several different answers and remembered them all.

Thoughts?
 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 04, 2005, 09:17:22 AM
Honestly, the thing that bugged me most about this RC section was that I really felt like I'd read some of the passages before. Especially the canadian law one. It's so similar to one I saw in another test (June?) with the native tribes in Canada. At least to me.

Actually, I saw similar questions all over the place. It was wild.

I was pretty stuck on how the canadian author felt, too. It's one of the ones I marked and went back to. I really, really hate the questions that ask you how the author feels.

I thought the Canadian author was "hesitant approval" or something like that, because she consciously chose "probably" and "most likely" and "perhaps" all in the last paragraph when talking about the conclusions of what the art was for.

Do you remember other answer choices that were available?  I'm trying to figure out if this is the question concerning the author's feelings concerning the future prospects of native Canadian claims.  For the record, zen, I almost want "indifferent" for the Glueck one to be right just so you can get some sleep over the next three weeks :-) (I chose 'tacit approval') 

No, it was a seperate question. One was what would the author most likely think about the prospects, and the other was what is the author's attitude...

I'll be fine, whatever the answer to that question, although I may drop an email to LSAC, though I think having the question thrown out is almost as bad as just getting it wrong because it screws with the scale.

But thanks for being so gracious...

 :D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 04, 2005, 09:19:44 AM


Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence

4. imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"



I really think that #3 and #4 that you have listed for the Gluck passage are the same question. The question about what her "inheritance" was, I put the answer about the great work passed down by male writers, writers in general, something like that. However, I debated that answer quite a bit, and I do recall there being a choice that stated that the inheritance was the imposition of the male dominated bla bla bla on her. Inevitably, I did not choose that answer, because the word "imposition" was way too strong. The purpose of the passage is to show how Gluck seemingly embraced the male dominated nature of poetry as part of its beautiful history and a narrative. Critics in the passage would use the word imposition, but definitely not Gluck.

I also remember an answer on one of those questions that said something about social and historical transcendence. I recall liking it originally, but then when I read the last sentence, it directly contradicted the statement. The answer said something about poetry ignoring society and history, and directly in the passage it was stated that poetry was sensitive to those two things.

Again, I think that answer was also a choice for the Inheritance question. I don't know what question is missing, perhaps a gimme we are forgetting, but if I had to stake my life on it (which thankfully I do not), I would say that 3 and 4 are the same question, and basically we have it separated because this question in particular people had several different answers and remembered them all.

Thoughts?
 

I think what's screwed up is that "male-dominated, universal" was the answer for the last question, about what would Gluck most likely agree with, and the inheritance question was a seperate one, and the author's attitude was a seperate (well-debated) one...
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 04, 2005, 09:21:17 AM
Passage 1 was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season
Passage 2 was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice
Passage 3 was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property
Passage 4 was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.

Cavemen

1. that tribal rituals were used in addition to cave paintings to gain magical power over the animals

2. Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions

3. paintings depicted in caves - animals (bisons discussed)

4. author felt about what the anthropologists were saying in paragraph 3 -  implicit approval

5.

Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence

4. imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"


Canadian law

1.author feels like the courts will get better, and glad about it

2.property owner means being able to do whatever you want with the property

3.which one of the following is most indicative of the fact that courts will be unlikely to rule always with the museums - even if native canadians did not own documentation of their property...

4.all the ones that litigated use the communal method

5.purpose of the first paragraph for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."

6.what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

7.


Embryos

1.what is meant by conservation of mechanism- researcher could compare the development of human and fruit fly eyes

2. diversity of methods by which early polarity is determined is surprising

4. What can we know about human polarization- it takes more cell division than...(whatever the question asked about)

5. What is the point of third or second paragraph- to demonstrate various ways that animals can polarize

6.difference for fruit flies and nematodes: fruit flies ready to go prior to fertilization, nematodes upon fertilization, or something like that...

7.

8.



************************************************************************************************

If anyone reconstructs the passages in more detail or the questions for each passage just PM me and I'll modify this post.  I didn't take the test so I'll need your help.


I really think that #3 and #4 that you have listed for the Gluck passage are the same question. The question about what her "inheritance" was, I put the answer about the great work passed down by male writers, writers in general, something like that. However, I debated that answer quite a bit, and I do recall there being a choice that stated that the inheritance was the imposition of the male dominated bla bla bla on her. Inevitably, I did not choose that answer, because the word "imposition" was way too strong. The purpose of the passage is to show how Gluck seemingly embraced the male dominated nature of poetry as part of its beautiful history and a narrative. Critics in the passage would use the word imposition, but definitely not Gluck.

I also remember an answer on one of those questions that said something about social and historical transcendence. I recall liking it originally, but then when I read the last sentence, it directly contradicted the statement. The answer said something about poetry ignoring society and history, and directly in the passage it was stated that poetry was sensitive to those two things.

Again, I think that answer was also a choice for the Inheritance question. I don't know what question is missing, perhaps a gimme we are forgetting, but if I had to stake my life on it (which thankfully I do not), I would say that 3 and 4 are the same question, and basically we have it separated because this question in particular people had several different answers and remembered them all.

Thoughts?
 

Ha, and here I had been thinking that I was the only one who thought this.  You remember the question just as I do, Steve--I ultimately chose the "achievements" one
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 04, 2005, 09:22:00 AM


Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence

4. imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"



I really think that #3 and #4 that you have listed for the Gluck passage are the same question. The question about what her "inheritance" was, I put the answer about the great work passed down by male writers, writers in general, something like that. However, I debated that answer quite a bit, and I do recall there being a choice that stated that the inheritance was the imposition of the male dominated bla bla bla on her. Inevitably, I did not choose that answer, because the word "imposition" was way too strong. The purpose of the passage is to show how Gluck seemingly embraced the male dominated nature of poetry as part of its beautiful history and a narrative. Critics in the passage would use the word imposition, but definitely not Gluck.

I also remember an answer on one of those questions that said something about social and historical transcendence. I recall liking it originally, but then when I read the last sentence, it directly contradicted the statement. The answer said something about poetry ignoring society and history, and directly in the passage it was stated that poetry was sensitive to those two things.

Again, I think that answer was also a choice for the Inheritance question. I don't know what question is missing, perhaps a gimme we are forgetting, but if I had to stake my life on it (which thankfully I do not), I would say that 3 and 4 are the same question, and basically we have it separated because this question in particular people had several different answers and remembered them all.

Thoughts?
 

I think what's screwed up is that "male-dominated, universal" was the answer for the last question, about what would Gluck most likely agree with, and the inheritance question was a seperate one, and the author's attitude was a seperate (well-debated) one...

Agreed
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 04, 2005, 09:25:06 AM
Passage 1 was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season
Passage 2 was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice
Passage 3 was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property
Passage 4 was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.

Cavemen

1. that tribal rituals were used in addition to cave paintings to gain magical power over the animals

2. Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions

3. paintings depicted in caves - animals (bisons discussed)

4. author felt about what the anthropologists were saying in paragraph 3 -  implicit approval

5.

Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence

4. imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"


Canadian law

1.author feels like the courts will get better, and glad about it

2.property owner means being able to do whatever you want with the property

3.which one of the following is most indicative of the fact that courts will be unlikely to rule always with the museums - even if native canadians did not own documentation of their property...

4.all the ones that litigated use the communal method

5.purpose of the first paragraph for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."

6.what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

7.


Embryos

1.what is meant by conservation of mechanism- researcher could compare the development of human and fruit fly eyes

2. diversity of methods by which early polarity is determined is surprising

4. What can we know about human polarization- it takes more cell division than...(whatever the question asked about)

5. What is the point of third or second paragraph- to demonstrate various ways that animals can polarize

6.difference for fruit flies and nematodes: fruit flies ready to go prior to fertilization, nematodes upon fertilization, or something like that...

7.

8.



************************************************************************************************

If anyone reconstructs the passages in more detail or the questions for each passage just PM me and I'll modify this post.  I didn't take the test so I'll need your help.


I really think that #3 and #4 that you have listed for the Gluck passage are the same question. The question about what her "inheritance" was, I put the answer about the great work passed down by male writers, writers in general, something like that. However, I debated that answer quite a bit, and I do recall there being a choice that stated that the inheritance was the imposition of the male dominated bla bla bla on her. Inevitably, I did not choose that answer, because the word "imposition" was way too strong. The purpose of the passage is to show how Gluck seemingly embraced the male dominated nature of poetry as part of its beautiful history and a narrative. Critics in the passage would use the word imposition, but definitely not Gluck.

I also remember an answer on one of those questions that said something about social and historical transcendence. I recall liking it originally, but then when I read the last sentence, it directly contradicted the statement. The answer said something about poetry ignoring society and history, and directly in the passage it was stated that poetry was sensitive to those two things.

Again, I think that answer was also a choice for the Inheritance question. I don't know what question is missing, perhaps a gimme we are forgetting, but if I had to stake my life on it (which thankfully I do not), I would say that 3 and 4 are the same question, and basically we have it separated because this question in particular people had several different answers and remembered them all.

Thoughts?
 

Ha, and here I had been thinking that I was the only one who thought this.  You remember the question just as I do, Steve--I ultimately chose the "achievements" one

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the achievements one was right (I couldn't remember the wording) because all the other choices were way over the top, like IMPOSITION? No way Gluk thought that. She loved those fuckers.

 :D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 04, 2005, 09:29:11 AM
Passage 1 was about Augurnarians(sp?) and their cave paintings, how they factored into hunting season
Passage 2 was about Gluck and her critics, who wanted female poets to have a distinctive voice
Passage 3 was about native Canadians and the private property vs. collective property
Passage 4 was about the comparison of fruit flys fertilization and the fertilization of neomates(sp?) and maybe humans as well.

Cavemen

1. that tribal rituals were used in addition to cave paintings to gain magical power over the animals

2. Specialization--the passage specifically mentions shamans and religious leaders, specialized professions

3. paintings depicted in caves - animals (bisons discussed)

4. author felt about what the anthropologists were saying in paragraph 3 -  implicit approval

5.

Gluck and poetry

1. analogy -Bird flying exposing the normally non-visible turbulence in the air

2. tacit agreement

3. inheritance - male-dominated, universal v. social and historical transcendence

4. imposition v. those great literary achievements passed down generations of writers

5. poetic connection  in childhood

6. main point – "though criticism, gluck…"

7.the realization of gender roles/identities/whatever would be st rongest if the author was____ - "unconscious/unaware of gender roles"


Canadian law

1.author feels like the courts will get better, and glad about it

2.property owner means being able to do whatever you want with the property

3.which one of the following is most indicative of the fact that courts will be unlikely to rule always with the museums - even if native canadians did not own documentation of their property...

4.all the ones that litigated use the communal method

5.purpose of the first paragraph for native Canadians: "to give the basic context...."

6.what individual and communal property rights shared:  allowed more than one individual to own property

7.


Embryos

1.what is meant by conservation of mechanism- researcher could compare the development of human and fruit fly eyes

2. diversity of methods by which early polarity is determined is surprising

4. What can we know about human polarization- it takes more cell division than...(whatever the question asked about)

5. What is the point of third or second paragraph- to demonstrate various ways that animals can polarize

6.difference for fruit flies and nematodes: fruit flies ready to go prior to fertilization, nematodes upon fertilization, or something like that...

7.

8.



************************************************************************************************

If anyone reconstructs the passages in more detail or the questions for each passage just PM me and I'll modify this post.  I didn't take the test so I'll need your help.


I really think that #3 and #4 that you have listed for the Gluck passage are the same question. The question about what her "inheritance" was, I put the answer about the great work passed down by male writers, writers in general, something like that. However, I debated that answer quite a bit, and I do recall there being a choice that stated that the inheritance was the imposition of the male dominated bla bla bla on her. Inevitably, I did not choose that answer, because the word "imposition" was way too strong. The purpose of the passage is to show how Gluck seemingly embraced the male dominated nature of poetry as part of its beautiful history and a narrative. Critics in the passage would use the word imposition, but definitely not Gluck.

I also remember an answer on one of those questions that said something about social and historical transcendence. I recall liking it originally, but then when I read the last sentence, it directly contradicted the statement. The answer said something about poetry ignoring society and history, and directly in the passage it was stated that poetry was sensitive to those two things.

Again, I think that answer was also a choice for the Inheritance question. I don't know what question is missing, perhaps a gimme we are forgetting, but if I had to stake my life on it (which thankfully I do not), I would say that 3 and 4 are the same question, and basically we have it separated because this question in particular people had several different answers and remembered them all.

Thoughts?
 

Ha, and here I had been thinking that I was the only one who thought this.  You remember the question just as I do, Steve--I ultimately chose the "achievements" one

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the achievements one was right (I couldn't remember the wording) because all the other choices were way over the top, like IMPOSITION? No way Gluk thought that. She loved those fuckers.

 :D

FYI, I thought that you summed up the Glueck passage perfectly yesterday
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Rooster on December 04, 2005, 09:35:22 AM
For canadian law, wasnt one of the questions an EXCEPT...something like the author says all of the things in the passage EXCEPT

and for an answer i put down that private ownership allows just one owner, which isnt true, you can have multiple people on a deed.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 04, 2005, 09:36:46 AM
For canadian law, wasnt one of the questions an EXCEPT...something like the author says all of the things in the passage EXCEPT

and for an answer i put down that private ownership allows just one owner, which isnt true, you can have multiple people on a deed.

Yeah, you are right! Good one ... because it mentioned that groups can hold private property when acting together as individuals.

 ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: helpmeregister on December 04, 2005, 09:50:24 AM
does anyone remember if the "great achievement " choice for the gluck passage had the wrd "model" in it...like an achievement was to serve as a model?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 04, 2005, 11:45:54 AM
For canadian law, wasnt one of the questions an EXCEPT...something like the author says all of the things in the passage EXCEPT

and for an answer i put down that private ownership allows just one owner, which isnt true, you can have multiple people on a deed.

Yeah, you are right! Good one ... because it mentioned that groups can hold private property when acting together as individuals.

 ;D
this one, i think, is #6 in the list.  one that is missing from the embryo list is "Q: What would the author be most likely to agree with?  A: Scientists will work on figuring out how human polarity is determined."
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sck on December 04, 2005, 12:15:34 PM
I should clarify maybe... My main one I was stuck with on the Canadian property law one was the one with the courts and her attitude. The 'thinks it should' or 'thinks it will' question, if I recall right.

I skipped it and went back at the end and still guessed.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: gregfurd on December 04, 2005, 12:23:11 PM
I should clarify maybe... My main one I was stuck with on the Canadian property law one was the one with the courts and her attitude. The 'thinks it should' or 'thinks it will' question, if I recall right.

I skipped it and went back at the end and still guessed.

Author thought it should and would.  I don't remember the exact words in the answer but it expressed certainty that it would and appreciation of that.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Luxor on December 04, 2005, 12:35:03 PM
For canadian law, wasnt one of the questions an EXCEPT...something like the author says all of the things in the passage EXCEPT

and for an answer i put down that private ownership allows just one owner, which isnt true, you can have multiple people on a deed.

Yeah, you are right! Good one ... because it mentioned that groups can hold private property when acting together as individuals.

 ;D
this one, i think, is #6 in the list.  one that is missing from the embryo list is "Q: What would the author be most likely to agree with?  A: Scientists will work on figuring out how human polarity is determined."

That answer choice was definitely C, with whatever A was being the other contender; I'm pretty sure that C was the correct answer, too (ah, what a 'delicious mystery!')
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: thelsater on December 04, 2005, 06:31:26 PM
Hey are you guys sure about this question from the caveman passage?

5.  something like why the pictures were painted in some place so inaccessible - cave paitings had other functions aside from aesthetic ones

I remember looking at this one for a while and having trouble figuring it out but I think I went with an answer choice that said they were only meant for certain people to see/they were not meant for everyone.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dalilamahimself on December 04, 2005, 06:46:19 PM
Does anyone remember how many questions had an answer of D in the canadian rc passage?  i guessed and am dying to hear something like...yeah there were a couple of d's or something....anything :)
please let me know.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: helpmeregister on December 04, 2005, 06:51:25 PM
yeah i am still curious about this as well drainaldi....no replies to your earlier post?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: iziniti on December 04, 2005, 08:05:05 PM
i still think indifference.

the author spent a lot of time on criticism and any compliment to gluck was attributed.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sea dream on December 05, 2005, 03:10:29 AM
blah.. i've read most of this thread now because RC is alwys the bane of my existence. i dont think this one was too bad. i circled a great majority of the q's as iffy but not too many were so bad i just could not decide. i chose detached indifference, but that was definitely the worst question in RC. i see that most people have agreed? now that it is tacit endorsement or w/e the answer choice was. i don't know. it just seems weird to me, as most people who went with detached indifference, to claim that an RC passage is "tacitly" endorsing something. the passage seemed mostly like a report on Gluck. "she said". in any case though, i've pretty much set my mind to getting this question wrong. To me however detached indifference is not negative as somebody was arguing in part of this thread. it just means.. well.. unbiased or distant neutralism. who knows what the real answer will be, though. i've always hated author tone questions..
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dalilamahimself on December 05, 2005, 06:18:52 AM
Does anyone remember how many questions had an answer of D in the canadian rc passage?  i guessed and am dying to hear something like...yeah there were a couple of d's or something....anything
please let me know.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Patrick Bateman on December 05, 2005, 06:25:35 AM
Does anyone know if there were any C's in the last RC section?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dalilamahimself on December 05, 2005, 07:13:11 AM
I have heard back from someone who said that they were positive that they answered one question - C - and that they felt pretty confident that it was correct. 
I have not heard anything regarding D's.  Please let me know if you hear anything.  I am really having a hard time deciding what to do...I screwed up the last logic game about rock/folk bands and I normally score the highest on logic games.   I guessed d on all the canadian rc questions and have not heard anything regarding how many d's there were...ugggggggggggh....  ???
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: liberator on December 05, 2005, 08:45:07 AM
Hey are you guys sure about this question from the caveman passage?

5.  something like why the pictures were painted in some place so inaccessible - cave paitings had other functions aside from aesthetic ones

I remember looking at this one for a while and having trouble figuring it out but I think I went with an answer choice that said they were only meant for certain people to see/they were not meant for everyone.

Thoughts?

That is exactly the answer I went with, and I am confident about it.  If they were hard to access, they they wouldn't have other functions.  They were for a select group of painters whose purpose was to make everyone else have control over animals. 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Patrick Bateman on December 05, 2005, 11:21:19 AM
do you remember the other answer choices?  i thought the inaccessibility of the paintings had something to do with a spiritual purpose.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Brett McKay on December 05, 2005, 11:40:57 AM
Honestly, the thing that bugged me most about this RC section was that I really felt like I'd read some of the passages before. Especially the canadian law one. It's so similar to one I saw in another test (June?) with the native tribes in Canada. At least to me.

Actually, I saw similar questions all over the place. It was wild.

I was pretty stuck on how the canadian author felt, too. It's one of the ones I marked and went back to. I really, really hate the questions that ask you how the author feels.

I thought the Canadian author was "hesitant approval" or something like that, because she consciously chose "probably" and "most likely" and "perhaps" all in the last paragraph when talking about the conclusions of what the art was for.

I put the same. Those key words are what triggered my response as well. He also used "curiously" in the passage as well,
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: SH on December 05, 2005, 11:45:50 AM
Hey are you guys sure about this question from the caveman passage?

5.  something like why the pictures were painted in some place so inaccessible - cave paitings had other functions aside from aesthetic ones

I remember looking at this one for a while and having trouble figuring it out but I think I went with an answer choice that said they were only meant for certain people to see/they were not meant for everyone.

Thoughts?

That is exactly the answer I went with, and I am confident about it.  If they were hard to access, they they wouldn't have other functions.  They were for a select group of painters whose purpose was to make everyone else have control over animals. 

exactly, if it were for aesthetic reasons, they would be on lower ground for everyone to admire.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Brett McKay on December 05, 2005, 12:20:42 PM
i still think indifference.

the author spent a lot of time on criticism and any compliment to gluck was attributed.

agreed. I really think it was indifference as well. I hope I'm right so I can come back to the board and be really smug about it.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: pdiddy on December 06, 2005, 05:15:42 AM
Hey Everybody
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp.  I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author.  In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words.  I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report.  For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist.  That was at least my thinking in answering this question.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 06, 2005, 05:18:51 AM
Hey Everybody
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and a pretty good English major and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp.  I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author.  In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words.  I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report.  For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist.  That was at least my thinking in answering this question.


TITCR

 ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sea dream on December 06, 2005, 05:24:45 AM
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: pdiddy on December 06, 2005, 05:54:44 AM
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.

SeaDream,

I totally agree with you, there are some questions that I just shake my head at...particularly logic reasoning things.  I agree they don't always write very good questions, this may be one of them.  I looked up the word tacit and it's a totally loaded word.  Maybe the author did tacitally agree, but the passage was written so mechanically and dryly that I simply couldn't go with it.  Obviously, the dude abides, and when the LSAT scores come out I may be happy or apologetic, but either way, I'd have to agree that this is a crappy question.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: zenpeaceofmind on December 06, 2005, 06:15:18 AM
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.

SeaDream,

I totally agree with you, there are some questions that I just shake my head at...particularly logic reasoning things.  I agree they don't always write very good questions, this may be one of them.  I looked up the word tacit and it's a totally loaded word.  Maybe the author did tacitally agree, but the passage was written so mechanically and dryly that I simply couldn't go with it.  Obviously, the dude abides, and when the LSAT scores come out I may be happy or apologetic, but either way, I'd have to agree that this is a crappy question.

Definitely. For the "rules" they tell us to follow when answering RC questions, the answer should NEVER include a word like "tacit" ...

Que sera, sera...

 ;)
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: paigeroo on December 06, 2005, 06:47:50 AM
Hey Everybody
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and a pretty good English major and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp.  I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author.  In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words.  I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report.  For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist.  That was at least my thinking in answering this question.


TITCR

 ;D

I whole-heartedly agree with zen.  I remember that on this question specifically... I was debating between those two answers... "tacit APPROVAL" and "Indifference."  I searched for ANY keywords at all that would signal approval.. meaning.. the author agrees with what they are writing about or find if favorable.  I saw NOTHING.  I too, choose indifference because the author seemed detached from what she was writing about... simply reporting rather than trying to get her opinion across.  All of you that picked "tacit approval" went for the "grab answer" so to speak.  But remember... just because the passage didn't say anything AGAINST what was being written about... this doesn't mean that they APPROVED of anything either.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sea dream on December 06, 2005, 06:48:48 AM
maybe there is hope for the indifference crowd.  ;D
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: posnerd on December 06, 2005, 06:59:46 AM

I whole-heartedly agree with zen.  I remember that on this question specifically... I was debating between those two answers... "tacit APPROVAL" and "Indifference."  I searched for ANY keywords at all that would signal approval.. meaning.. the author agrees with what they are writing about or find if favorable.  I saw NOTHING.  I too, choose indifference because the author seemed detached from what she was writing about... simply reporting rather than trying to get her opinion across.  All of you that picked "tacit approval" went for the "grab answer" so to speak.  But remember... just because the passage didn't say anything AGAINST what was being written about... this doesn't mean that they APPROVED of anything either.


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Root Hog on December 06, 2005, 07:28:01 AM


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 


Exactly. If it is written in a upfront manner then it is not tacit. I got this one wrong. I went with enthusiatic,I think. I switched back and forth twice and I think I ended with enthusiatic. I could not get my brain to come up with a definition of tacit. When I got home and looked it up, it was obvious that this was the correct answer. I never even considered indifferent. I hate having missed this one. Just a simple understanding of the definition of an everyday word like tacit would have given it away.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sea dream on December 06, 2005, 07:31:53 AM


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 


Exactly. If it is written in a upfront manner then it is not tacit. I got this one wrong. I went with enthusiatic,I think. I switched back and forth twice and I think I ended with enthusiatic. I could not get my brain to come up with a definition of tacit. When I got home and looked it up, it was obvious that this was the correct answer. I never even considered indifferent. I hate having missed this one. Just a simple understanding of the definition of an everyday word like tacit would have given it away.

I don't see how. nothing int his passage was really all that approving, it was very much a report of  Gluck's own words. Tacit meaning silent, saying that you find "silent" approval in a reading passage is going pretty far in the reasoning. Again: i really have no clue waht the official answer for this question will be, and i think anybody who claims to be 100% sure is full of bunk. if the approval is so silent that looking for word clues in the passage is so meaningless, then how do you know this silent sentiment is approval versus distaste or indifference? i'm at least more convinced when people state actual substantive arguments like how Gluck was always portrayed as having the last word versus the critics. this makes it more creditable, although still pretty iffy.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: t L on December 06, 2005, 07:34:06 AM
i don't think tacit is a very common word.  i had never heard or seen that word until that question.  LSAC could have just used implied instead of tacit.  i thought that was very tricky of them because if i knew what the word meant, i would have chosen that answer.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: pdiddy on December 06, 2005, 07:34:33 AM
Quote
  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 

Posernd,

I totally agree with you.  I am here posting a definition of tacit so we can take a look at it, it's from dictionary.com.  Coincidentally, the definition on the website has two wonderful examples of tacit approval:

1) Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.
2) a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: Management has given its tacit approval to the plan.                            
   b. Law. Arising by operation of the law rather than through direct expression.
3) Archaic. Not speaking; silent.
 


My problem with this definition, and as I reread the entire passage just to get this one question, is that the author writes the passage as an unbiased journalist would report the news.  She simply writes, says what Gluck thinks and did, the basis for her poetry, a feminist critique, and how Gluck responds to critics.  We also know that searching for keywords for a tacit thing is completely contradictory, there are no keywords or clues since something tacit is unstated.  Nevertheless, simply because the approval is unstated doesn't mean it must exist.  If there was tacit approval, there would have to be some undercurrent, some unstated indicator that the author approved of Gluck.  Perhaps, the author would say, "The best thing about Gluck's theory is..." or "Gluck's novel and compelling approach to poetry..." would indicate tacit approval even though the author doesn't state it.  But that never happened.  Thus, we can't create something out of nothing, and that's why I think indifference is the only true thing that the author expresses.  
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: sck on December 06, 2005, 08:11:00 AM
My primary feeling for the argument for Tacit is that when I read that passage I remember thinking very strongly that it was quite positive towards Gluck. All the explanations given seemed quite positive and did allow Gluck the 'winning' statement. If it were more indifferent, my feeling would be that there would have been less positive language used in the quotations and explanations attributed towards her.

I mean, yes, I could be totally wrong. I just remember having a sense that the passage was positively phrased towatds Gluck's attitude. I wish I could find it on the web and reread it; I keep searching.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dalilamahimself on December 06, 2005, 08:30:40 AM
I agree completely.  I know that there may not have been a verbal queue that signifies approval.  But the language that the passaged used was definitely more positive than negative.  As far as the definition of the word tacit, I look at it like this...

Let's say that the author was talking about someone notorious for committing horrible crimes and went on to list the reasoning of why they did it but they never went ahead and said that they were wrong...and this was all done in the tone that was used in the gluck passage.  I would consider that tacit approval.  I would be surprised if the indifferent answer was correct.  The reason I didn't choose that is  because I felt like...obviously the author feels something about it.  This was a tough one.  I don't know  -  I could be wrong...some of the the threads here have made me think otherwise about this one.  Maybe I'm just writing this because I hope I'm right :) 
 
Also - I've been trying to figure out how many d's there were as answers on the canadian passage.  Does anyone remember any answer on that passage being a D?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: dalilamahimself on December 06, 2005, 11:36:38 AM
also - someone suggested that i 'bump' my question regarding d's and the canadian law review to the top but i don't know how to do that.  i searched but can't find it.  any help would be great. 
i really need to know if anyone had answers of d on the canadian rc passage.  it's going to pretty much determine wether i cancell or keep the score. 
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: goinCRAZY on December 06, 2005, 03:40:53 PM

I whole-heartedly agree with zen.  I remember that on this question specifically... I was debating between those two answers... "tacit APPROVAL" and "Indifference."  I searched for ANY keywords at all that would signal approval.. meaning.. the author agrees with what they are writing about or find if favorable.  I saw NOTHING.  I too, choose indifference because the author seemed detached from what she was writing about... simply reporting rather than trying to get her opinion across.  All of you that picked "tacit approval" went for the "grab answer" so to speak.  But remember... just because the passage didn't say anything AGAINST what was being written about... this doesn't mean that they APPROVED of anything either.


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 

Yes- the approval was not presented in words or phrases but the organization of the passage definitely gave it away, hence TACIT approval. It raised criticism about Glcuk and presented her answer to each and every one of them, leaving the reader with Gluck's side as the last thing they remeber. 
For example if I say that "opponents of abortion think that no one has the right to kill a fetus but pro-choice people would question rather a fetus should be considered a full human" it has a very different feel from "Prochoice people argue that because fetus is not a complete life it does not deserve the protection of the law but the pro-lifers would argue that all potential life is worth saving". In the first sentence I am with prochoicers and in the second with the prolifers. Lastly, let me just ask, how many of you came out feeling that the other poets were crazy and Gluck was the sane one? Probably most, as the author intended you to feel.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: liberator on December 08, 2005, 05:36:31 AM

7. What would the author be most likely to agree with?  A: Scientists will work on figuring out how human polarity is determined.

8. What is the most typical situation research from simple vertebrates could be used for humans? A: Studying visual apparatus.
[/quote]


I just noticed the last two questions and the answers posted.  I see You wrote "A:"  Does anyone know if this is the LETTER answer choice selected?  Or does "A:" here mean "Answer" ?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: Typhoon Longwang on December 08, 2005, 07:56:02 AM
"A:" means answer
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: ksf on December 16, 2005, 11:58:05 AM
I guess you guys might have discussed this to death but... did anyone else get a few alternating "A" answers for the final passage (on embryos)? Like A,x,A,x,A, etc.? I was really rushing on that one... Thanks.
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: bubble-filler on December 16, 2005, 12:20:33 PM
I guess you guys might have discussed this to death but... did anyone else get a few alternating "A" answers for the final passage (on embryos)? Like A,x,A,x,A, etc.? I was really rushing on that one... Thanks.

Yes! Someone revived the RC post-mortem! I don't know how much help I'll be on this question because I was totally rushing through the embryo passage too, but I do recall at least a few A's, and I think I marked A for the final question.

Anyone else have input on this one?
Title: Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
Post by: ksf on December 17, 2005, 05:11:49 PM
Thanks for the input. I feel a bit better knowing somone else got a few A's for the last passage. I just remember getting several of them alternating, which kinda stuck out for me.