Prof, @ProfShaun
I was doing the exercises from class 2.2 that you corrected in class 2.3 and I didn’t understand the answers for numbers 1, 4 and 8.
1 - “Bolsonaro’s administration was not entirely fragmented into separate factions that lacked a unified ideological purpose.”
I tought the statement was TRUE because of the adverb “entirely”, since Bolsonaro’s administration was clearly fragmented, but not entirely
4 - “There was no complete absence of scepticism regarding Paulo Guedes’s alignment with
nationalist ideals, yet his unwavering commitment to globalism was never denied.”
I tought the statement was TRUE because the scepticism around Paulo Guedes is centered in the fact that he is viewed as insufficiently nationalist, while his commitment to globalism has always been quite clear.
8 - “There was neither an absolute rejection of Traditionalist ideas nor an uncritical acceptance of every aspect of Guénon and Evola’s philosophy during the dinner discussion.”
I tought the statement was TRUE because the Traditionalist ideas were not absolutely rejected and “Guénon and Evola’s philosophy” was indeed criticized.
As you can see, I’m having a few problems with these negative questions. Thank you for the attention.
and will make question harder than the exam so you’ll score well. You effort will work in your favour. 