Answer:
They help you understand the character because you guess things about the character, which makes you think harder, helping you better understand.
Explanation:
Answer:
Such results only tell us how well one is programmed to regurgitate mostly useless information, mostly in regards to one of 7 kinds of intelligence.
This can be a good indicator on whether or not a person will be able to handle even higher amounts of regurgitation of information at the university level. The hope is that students will major in a study that will at least expose them to the tools of critical thinking, which is mostly limited to the hard sciences.
“Learners” who score high can will feel overblown grandiose feelings, and see themselves as superior to those with lower scores, regardless of their future accomplishments (or lack of them). “Learners” who score low will tend to feel humbled and maybe depressed, in that they are typecast as being somehow unable to be much of a future contributor to society.
Fortunately, a significant number of people at ANY point of the spectrum of such scoring to see how well trained a monkey they are, realize the absurdity of such scoring, and go on to find out where they DO excel in one of the other 7 kinds of intelligence. They often end up contributing MORE to society, once they find there “gift” where they “score” much higher
Explanation:
Sam, where do you want to be in 5 years?
that's grammatically correct.
B. It supports the myth by providing real facts about the custom of antelope hunting by the Kiowas.
Immediately options C and D should be eliminated. In the excerpt there is no mention of teepees or winter so these are not valid answers. This leaves option A and B. The difference between the two is that Option A says the description is from a personal point of view. A personal point of view should be written in first person with the pronouns I, me, my. The excerpt is written from third person point of view so it is not option A.
