<p>How do you structure the analysis? By chronology, or order of rhetorical stategies? Both of yours are on the boarderline. jane, that’s a five. softiful, probably a 4.</p>
<p>janecakemaster: definitely.
i got a 41 raw once and a two 6’s and a 7 on the essays. that was enough for a 5. the curve changes year to year, but i’m pretty sure that’s a safe range.</p>
<p>So I feel like I am on the border then…</p>
<p>I will have to get into my zone and listen to my ipod before the test so I can write some good material… XD</p>
<p>If you get that analysis up 1 point softiful, and 1 more point on either essay, or 3 more on the MC, you’ll be safely at a 5.</p>
<p>does anyone have a real test they can give me?</p>
<p>oh and is it better to look over the questions first?</p>
<p>does anyone know how the cliffs MC compare to the real thing? i just decided to do some practice for the first time this year (a little late, i know) and i’m finding the cliffs’ questions ridiculously easy.</p>
<p>that good globe. people’s scores tend to go UP from Cliff’s</p>
<p>this is the first bit of good news i’ve heard all day, seadog!</p>
<p>how do you do it globe? read the whole passage first or go right to the questions?</p>
<p>"that good globe. people’s scores tend to go UP from Cliff’s "</p>
<p>omg, really? I’ve been getting like, 40-45 (without guessing deduction) on Cliff’s, so if you’re right I’ll be getting a 5</p>
<p>i just followed my gut - straight to the questions. i go to the line reference questions first, read 5 lines up and 5 down, answer it and move on to the next line reference. by the time i’m done with the line reference questions, i usually have a good enough sense of the passage to form an educated guess to the general questions. basically, i’ve just been following my sat critical reading strategy. so far so good. </p>
<p>how do you guys approach the synthesis and other opinion essays? do you actually write about your own opinions or do you just choose the easiest way out?</p>
<p>i usually go with the one i can argue the most effectively, usually the easiest. is it true though that they’re a tad more lenient if you choose the opposite point of view that most people would choose?</p>
<p>globe, you don’t read the passage through at all?</p>
<p>I come up with an opinion first then scour for support. In this sense, I find synthesis a lot easier. Usually, I take the articles I’m in agreement with, use facts from there, and then turn refute the article I disagree with. Argumentative is tough. Look for examples from literature and history is the best way to go. Also, if they give you a passage, go to its claim first.</p>
<p>I’m trying to figure out which of my exams I should freak out about and study more. Having two on one day sucks so hard. I’m thinking I should do at least one practice English exam, but I also have to know 10,000 years of art history (I’ve got about 2000 more to go. Unfortunately, they’re the <em>main</em> 2000. Not some random years between 8000 and 6000 BCE). Life sucks.</p>
<p>@azn: nope, i haven’t found a need to read the passage through. i’m a slowish test taker, so i need all of the time i can possibly get to really think about the questions. i know a lot of people don’t necessarily advocate my strategy (“it’s better to read the entire passage and take notes,” says my english teacher) but i find it to be working so far. if it weren’t the eve of the exam i would definitely suggest giving it a try.</p>
<p>anyone have prediction for the argumentative?</p>
<p>i read the passage quickly & pay close attention to the 1st and last paragraphs and it usually helps me get what’s going on. i answer the questions in order though otherwise i think i’d waste time going back and i’d prob get messed up. </p>
<p>i kno we’re supposed to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint for the argumentative essay but do we have to do that for the synthesis essay too?</p>
<p>i don’t know if we have to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint for the synthesis either but i do - it’s a good way for me to use more documents!</p>
<p>How do you structure the analysis? By chronology, or order of rhetorical stategies? Both of yours are on the boarderline. jane, that’s a five. softiful, probably a 4. </p>
<p>what i mean is if the writer of your analysis piece doesn’t have anythign significant and you are forced to talk about structrure(happens very often in the latest exam according to my teacher). I gave the normal structure in my original post about this</p>