<p>Wait what is the question you are contesting silver? Was it on Form W?</p>
<p>^Yes, it was a writing question in Form W. This is the original statement from the test:</p>
<p>The arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring fascinates scientists, who continue to search for an explanation of the phenomenon. (ANS by CB: No error)</p>
<p>But it can be argued that there is an error for the “explanation of the phenomenon.” (it could be " an explanation for the phenomenon" – that’s kinda what I and others assumed)</p>
<p>I think it is worth arguing for regardless of whether it translates into a change in the score. I, for one, would really hate for a question of similar nature to appear again on the PSAT/SATs and costing me a few points when it does really matter (fortunately, PSAT doesn’t count for me this year). I definitely think it is important and worthwhile to bring that to their attention though…</p>
<p>Yeah, I would say it was explanation for as well. I dont see CB changing their mind, but it looks like you guys who took it on Wednesday lucked out.</p>
<p>“but it looks like you guys who took it on Wednesday lucked out.”</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on that?</p>
<p>Some people from my school got their scores today (my school mails them home) which means that mine are coming on Monday, ahhhhh.</p>
<p>“but it looks like you guys who took it on Wednesday lucked out.”</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on that? </p>
<p>@silver–we had an easier writing section than they did on saturday.</p>
<p>of: Belonging to or associated with.
ex: The properties of this substance are interesting. </p>
<p>The arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring fascinates scientists, who continue to search for an explanation of the phenomenon. </p>
<p>Or, equivalently:</p>
<p>The arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring fascinates scientists, who continue to search for [the phenomenon’s explanation].</p>
<p>I got my PSAT scores in yesterday. I think I just made the cutoff for NMSF in Texas by about 2 points.</p>
<p>Form W</p>
<p>CR: 5 incorrect, 0 omitted, = 70 (97% percentile)
M: 2 incorrect, 3 omitted = 70 (96% percentile) – really upset that I omitted 3
W: 0 incorrect, 1 omitted = 78 (99% percentile)</p>
<p>Score: 218 (99% percentile)</p>
<p>how did form W have an easier writing section?</p>
<p>The S curve was brutal…? -2 = 70. That means collegeboard must have considered it to be very easy.</p>
<p>^ I just have a feeling that curve is wrong. It just can’t be right. Given the way most curves are structured that would yield a 74 or even 73 for -1; that has never happened.</p>
<p>Sammael, if your logic is correct, it should be easy to find an entry in a dictionary that supports it.</p>
<p>Can anyone confirm that -2 on the Writing for Form W is 73? It’s hard to believe that the score jumps from 78 (-1) to 73 (-2). Of course, I could just be that unlucky.</p>
<p>hey silverturtle are you seriously going to pursue this to the point of contacting collegboard?</p>
<p>Yeah, I’ve already written by argument.</p>
<p>The best case scenario is that I and many others get five points back (73 to 78); the worst case scenario is that they deny it, and I lose $10.</p>
<p>agreed, would you mind if i write a letter (not mentioning you of course) to collegeboard? i feel strongly about this too but i dont know if me writing will help or hinder your argument.</p>
<p>Well, you could build and draft your case, and we could compare and see whose is stronger. We could strengthen each other’s arguments; the College Board may be more likely to reverse its position if it gets multiple thoughtful appeals.</p>
<p>if you guys send in an appeal, and they do reverse it, will the college board take away the points of the people who put “no error” for that question? Or will they just give points to the people who put “explanation of” as the error? Because I put “no error” and i need those points lol</p>
<p>[of</a> - Wiktionary](<a href=“of - Wiktionary, the free dictionary”>of - Wiktionary, the free dictionary)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Belonging to or associated with.
The properties of this substance are interesting.</p></li>
<li><p>About; concerning</p></li>
</ol>
<p>[of</a> definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta](<a href=“http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=of]of”>http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=of)</p>
<ol>
<li>connected with: used to indicate the place that somebody or something belongs to or is connected with
the president of France</li>
</ol>
<p>[Of</a> Definition | Definition of Of at Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of]Of”>OF Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)</p>
<ol>
<li> (used to indicate possession, connection, or association): the king of France; the property of the church.</li>
</ol>
<p>‘Of’ is perfectly acceptable in that sentence.</p>
<p>In cases in which answers are changed, those who originally put the response the College Baord thought was correct do not lose points.</p>