<p>They’re relevant because they show that he can make mistakes. I was mainly talking about the ACT though. Just because he’s gotten a 36 before, doesn’t ensure that he will get a 36 EVERY time he ever takes the ACT. There may be a high likelihood that he will, but it doesn’t mean that it HAS to happen. So since he has gotten a 36, does that mean "celebration of " is likely the answer? YES. Does it definitely mean it’s the right answer NO. ESPECIALLY considering the fact that it may have taken him many tries to get the 36.</p>
<p>What did you guys put for the one that said something like: “It is reported that the longest game of monopoly lasted…”</p>
<p>I was debating between no change and “is told” and ended up putting no change.</p>
<p>yeah i had trouble w/ that one, i ended putting no change b/c i felt report was more appropriate in the context of the passage</p>
<p>I put is told because it sounded like a rumor to me instead of solid fact.</p>
<p>trueee ^^^^^ that makes sense</p>
<p>so far its a -4 for me. anyone know what this would be?</p>
<p>It actually thought it sounded like a fact that was reported on the news or something. Eagles thatll be a 32.</p>
<p>@Eagles I had -3 in October and got a 35, so I have no idea.</p>
<p>@MaydayParade The guy that got the 36 got it on a test in October 2009. The test that he got a 36 on was the exact same one we took (they reuse them occasionally). He put celebration of, and got a 36, so, therefore, it has to be the right answer. If it’s not, I would be surprised.</p>
<p>^No, it was “is reported”</p>
<p>First of all the fact is true, I just googled it, and secondly, “told” wouldn’t follow the previously set tone. It was a historical paragraph, not a fictional one.</p>
<p>@ zjkzjk Ohh. See I didn’t know that lol. I thought they were saying that he got a 36 on the ACT in 2009. Not a 36 on this specific one.</p>
<p>According to the Oxford English dictionary glare can also be positive:</p>
<p>1.
a. Dazzling brilliance (of a light, fire, sun, etc.); a strong fierce light. Also absol., dazzling or oppressive sunshine, esp. when falling upon reflecting surfaces and not relieved by shadow or verdure.
b. The glistening or shining of some surface.
2. fig. Dazzling or showy appearance; gaudiness; tawdry brilliance.</p>
<p>Source: [Home</a> : Oxford English Dictionary](<a href=“Oxford English Dictionary”>http://oed.com/)</p>
<p>However, it can also be bad.</p>
<p>(I remember the question only asking which is the least correct, not mentioning which has the most negative connotation)</p>
<p>I do admit I struggled between putting glared and shone, and I ultimately put shone as incorrect.</p>
<p>I did find this: [url=<a href=“http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/shined.html]shined/shone[/url”>shined / shone | Common Errors in English Usage and More | Washington State University]shined/shone[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Which suggests that if the phrase were: “The moonlight ____ on the pond” then shined would be more correct than shone. I’m not sure if that is what is said though.</p>
<p>Discuss (with support please, none of that “I’m right because I’m right”)… I’ve not decided either way yet.</p>
<p>From last year’s thread, the consensus was “glared”, and from this year’s, the consensus was also “glared”.</p>
<p>Do you know what the actual sentence was because that can make a difference? (I’m not saying I’m right, I just can’t remember what the actual sentence is.)</p>
<p>what exactly was the shone/glared question asking? Was it a “not acceptable” question or what?</p>
<p>Yeah, that one. Isn’t “shone” in the wrong tense, though? o_o</p>
<p>Glared
10 char. Dot</p>
<p>Hey, does anyone remember the two portions where it had a plural noun before who or whom? Was it who or whom?</p>
<p>In response to glared, by the way, I was torn between that and shone. Shone just sounds so, I don’t know, strange. The tense just doesn’t sound right. Especially when further in the test it had “shined.” I think. Agghh. Glared has a negative connotation though…/;</p>
<p>glare can be positive cant it? i also thought it was shone.</p>
<p>^Dude did you not take the test in OCtober 2009?? I thought you did…</p>
<p>i unfortunately did not.</p>