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:
I wish the author would have answered , In what way do the cell phones for soldiers particpants help military families? Another question is, How did these teens get their start in these programs?
weak verbs: help is overused and could be replaced with aid. serve could be replaced with contribute, share could be replaced with experience
D. Because it's not saying who's bike it is
