December SAT Int. test

<p>I don't think actor question was in Disney...</p>

<p>really? i thought the anachronistic question was with the actor question, and i was almost sure that the anachronistic question was with disney. that's a load of assumptions, lol. </p>

<p>as of now, i have -1 for vituperative, -1 for actors question (i still think conceded is fine, but winning people's equinanimity? whatever, i'm not collegeboard anyway) but everything else sounds good. i think i lost all of my marks on sc, i'm looking at about 770ish most likely, if i'm lucky 800 (veeeeeery doubtful of 800 though).</p>

<p>anyone remember the paired-short reading passage? i just cannot recall the questions.. i was so nervous when working on it.. seems i have made 3 wrong out of 4..
oh my god</p>

<p>I think the beneficiary/patron question was in the Disney section. Am totally not sure :S I think I put beneficiary anyway...</p>

<p>But the actor question was in the one with lobola passage ... the passage about the mother and daughter. I'm pretty sure.</p>

<p>The anachronistic one, I think was in the Disney passage... Good, cause I got that wrong! I think I put unequivocal for that lol =S</p>

<p>I totally HATED the paired-short reading passages.
The one about Samuel Taylor Coleridge was weird... I got stuck on the 1st/4th question of that. :(
The one about the Jordanian place ... I knew it wasn't ominous ... I think I put something else ... I forgot what ...
The one about the guy who was friendly but aloof ... I said that only ... that he was friendly and aloof.</p>

<p>In regard to RIGHT OR WORNG</p>

<p>FACED BY RIGHT OR WRONG</p>

<p>Besides, remeber one IE From the perspective of a serious student?
CHoose what?????</p>

<p>I think the laugh should be contagous
bcz the writer said leading to laughter
and then the mother said I am serious now
so it can be inferred that the laugh was contagious</p>

<p>that's incorrect vitowu. The situation was serious and then someone laughs. That is disrespectful, ie. irreverent. If it is contagious, the sentence would have given us the context clue (others join in the laughter, for example)</p>

<p>no , when the mother refered to her daughter reply,she said her reply leading to laughter and then immediatly in the next paragraph she said she is then seious now,which means what her daughter said made her laugh too.
There is not the atophere of being serious or rigorous.Her mother is just recalling their past with a somewhat relaxed and playful tone</p>

<p>Perhaps you've misread the question or confused it with another part of the critical reading. There was no such thing as the next paragraph btw, it was a sentence completion question.</p>

<p>Besides, remeber one IE From the perspective of a serious student?
CHoose what?????</p>

<p>it was a sentence completion question?that's impossible,it's in the passage about African American A mother wrote a letter to her daughter in USA</p>

<p>From the perspective of a serious student</p>

<p>or From the prospective of a serious student</p>

<p>which one was on the test ???I am in chaos.</p>

<p>Umm... it wasn't a sentence completion, but it is irreverent. The daughter laughed in the face of the mother. The mother is hurt throughout the entire passage, there isn't an inkling of lightheartedness in her tone. And she maintained a very stern tone throughout her speech. The daughter even interjected while the mother was speaking, and disrespectfully made fun of the mother and continued to laugh. A contagious laugh wouldn't have left the mother feeling doubts about herself at the end, and being somewhat downtrodden by her daughter, she would empathize with her daughter and laugh the daughter's new views off. It was definitely irreverent.</p>

<p>the word on the test was prospective, and it's obviously wrong. In regard to is also wrong. I don't remember the faced by, but it could be wrong in context (although it's fine in most situations).</p>

<p>foldedpaper are u sure of the following:</p>

<p>In regard to is also wrong. I don't remember the faced by, but it could be wrong in context (although it's fine in most situations).so it is wrong in SAT?</p>

<p>The mother is hurt throughout the entire passage?OMG ,did you get the real meaning why the mother wrote the letter?She is not being serious or exhausted, She is happy to see her girl grow differently from her.(PROUND)
Although in some of the passage she mention her adherence to the loacal trandition but that was just the recalling of her and her daughter's past conversation.What she then (the time she wrote the letter) believe is that she can found comfort being a woman and happy to see her daughter can challenge the tranditional thoughts(the whole tone is positive , it 's not didactic,serious or scolding)</p>

<p>DIFFUSE.....EQUANIMITY choose this one or not?</p>

<p>Oh so it was in passage reading question, my bad.</p>

<p>Then again, vitowu, I think you misunderstood the passage. Most of us who had discussed in this thread believed that the laugh is irreverent. Furthermore, the passage told us that the mother was dismayed by her daughter's hostile attitude towards the local customs. She had been proud of her daughter's progress ONLY until then. Instead of being rewarded for being a faithful housewife and raising her daughter well, she had to deal with her own daughter's seemingly endless criticisms towards their own culture. She was hurt by these criticisms and in the end, even began to doubt herself whether she made the right choice or not. Tell me, how could she laugh with her daughter this way?</p>

<p>On the side note, I chose defuse....equanimity</p>

<p>Tomo, I was thinking about the sentence, and I believe (okay, more like I'm certain), that you're right. Conceded has a negative connotation and it didn't really say anything to show that the actor didn't want to acknowledge the irritation (it doesn't really make sense either, because the actor willingly recognized the irritation and tried to change it himself), so it would have to be defused =( (<--for me anyway, lol). </p>

<p>umm vitowue: OMG, did get the real meaning of why the mother wrote the letter?</p>

<p>She was hurt by these criticisms and in the end, even began to doubt herself whether she made the right choice or not BUT HOW DID you GET THIS?
ANY evidence?
how could she laugh with her daughter this way?
let me tell you:1)the mother first recalled that once her daughter interjected and said ''Then you would have nothing if you let me worried by accepting the money'' this saying should not be regarded as irevernt by her mother.it was to some extent practically true(but contradicted to their customs)so the mother would laugh at her daughters how to say childish umm
furthermore, immediatly after the passage wrote leading to laughter
she informed that after that she was serious because she wanted her to realize the importance of their trandition!the passage is a memoir you must be able to what was happening in the past and what was the time the mother wrote the letter. The mother 's new attitude at the end of the passage mentioned as a soft chair means a pleasant rewarding.and finally she said anyway she was happy to see a girl who was able to make herself obselte and old-fashioned she was reaaly now pround of her girl's ambition now.</p>

<p>Can anyone find the actual passage? </p>

<p>In any case, Vit, the test is done so it's not like you can fix your wrong answers anyway, so just stop arguing. </p>

<p>Final word: mother isn't happy about daughter's development. (:</p>