Question 4, answer C's masculinity reference directly relates to the beginning of the passage with "Our fathers..." However, I'm glad you were able to demonstrate answering a question with two possibilities, one of them being more ambiguous than the other, and using logic to choose the best answer.
Great job! Should we always assume that you are always 100% correct? If not, then it would be helpful if you would reveal the correct answers at the end of the video, even if it is to confirm that your answers were all correct.
I'm a bit confused with #4 - "whether our views aligned" does not complete dispel that answer choice. Earlier in the same paragraph it stated that they (politicians) had abilities to make them see and think along side them as friends. No where in the passage does it mention anything about masculinity.
After highlighting the part that said opening discussion, a quick glimpse of the first paragraph you should lead you to the first line, “Our fathers saw them as they flipped through primetime tv.” To me this would be a masculine exercise, but take his advice on if you can’t find it anywhere and you also have a contradictory statement in a different answer choice, the contradictory one is probably the least likely choice.
@@connerjames1571 I thought the same thing. However, he cleared it for me when he stated "this answer was never even discussed, whereas this we can infer it because it goes against the main point of the passage or proof within the passage.
Your answer to #2 confuses me a little bit. The author pointed to the idea that listeners were so critical of political pundits and claimed that they weren’t meeting the standards of their audience… creating the demand for avatarization. To me, the statement “we were never a harem of obsessive fans” seems to align with that perspective. A harem of fans wouldn’t be so judgemental of their human pundits. Let me know if I’m missing anything and thanks for the great video!
