<p>@ lord</p>
<p>yeah, but that was wrong. the answer was 'because of…"</p>
<p>p.s. can someone answer my previous post? #119</p>
<p>the last two in the writing 35 questions were (B) (D)
where was the sentence placed :after sentence 9??
was Endowed with correct</p>
<p>@nitcomp
You will break 2000. Around 2100 probably.</p>
<p>@peaches134
A,“were they to be told” is correct</p>
<p>@theskylitup
I’m convinced. but it’s experimental,right?
What’s the question about “overstate the similarity” ? Do you remember your reasoning? I still can’t recall my answer –</p>
<p>Here are some other questions I remember:
Report is consoling or inflammatory? — short passage
A question about the word “Mechanical”
Explicate a natural process? — Water</p>
<p>@nitcomp: I had 7 omissions, 12 incorrect and a 7 essay on the Jan 09 SAT, and got a 2040, so I’d say you’ll probably break 2000.</p>
<p>@lordofcenturies: If that’s the parrot passage, I think the sentence was placed in the last/second-last paragraph. The sentence after the one which discusses how Clever Hans could infer answers from body movements.</p>
<p>@lord
because of
endowed with is correct</p>
<p>after sentence 13? I rushed last few questions, so I am not sure</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>aww! you’re quite adorable yourself! ;)</p>
<p>though why sob?</p>
<p>Erialc,</p>
<p>The question was something along the lines of “What would the author of passage 1 say about line 1 of passage 2?”. I answered “Overstate the similarity” and eliminated the rest of the responses.</p>
<p>The report is inflammatory, because the paragraph opens with “The report sparked off fireworks” and the scientists “charged”.</p>
<p>For the mechanical question, I put “Physical movements”, and I also answered “Explicate a natural process”.</p>
<p>So… the parrot question. Did anyone share the reasoning that answering questions accurately did not have as much to do with reasoning ability as the ability to understand complex questions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, Passage 1 was about the awesomeness of blogging - and its content was essentially a praise of how it was more “dialogic” - that is, it promoted interaction between the writer and the reader, and that it was a two way rather than one way channel of communication.</p>
<p>Passage 2 was a cranky piece about how “blogs are like newspapers and media in general - it’s fast, superficial, moves from one thing to another and it sucks” (essentially). It talks about how media sacrifices in depth exploration of issues for speed in covering issues, and releasing the latest thing. </p>
<p>The question you’re thinking of was something like “The author of passage 1 would disagree with what the author of passage 2 said [in the first sentence] for what reason?”</p>
<p>Choices included:</p>
<p>That the author of passage 2…</p>
<ul>
<li>overstated the similarity between blogs and newspapers <– my choice.</li>
<li>understated the ability of blogs to cover breaking news</li>
</ul>
<p>My reasoning? Well, a few were clearly wrong so POE, passage one didn’t actually say anything about blogs being quick to break news, and the answer about overstating the similarity couldn’t be faulted.</p>
<p>hi,</p>
<p>what about the short passage about the space centre? the question about the dragon?</p>
<p>Hey guys, what did yall get for the writing question in section 10 that went something along the lines of: Mark Spitz was a celebrated swimmer in the 19xx olympics ____________.?</p>
<p>I put “by winning six gold medals”. But I thought it also could have been “, winning six gold medals”.</p>
<p>i put ‘, winning six gold medals’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said that it represented the centre’s obsolescence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so did I, but I think I worried about that semicolon - it flows better but have we fragmented the sentence unnecessarily? Someone more well versed in grammar + sentence mechanics able to weigh in?</p>
<p>The sentence was like:</p>
<p>“Mark Spitz was the most decorated swimmer in the 19XX Olympics ______.”</p>
<p>and I think the common two answers are</p>
<ul>
<li>;winning 6 gold medals</li>
<li>by winning 6 gold medals.</li>
</ul>
<p>“Winning seven gold medals” was my answer, and “Obsolescence” for the dragon question as well.</p>
<p>I should stop refreshing this page…</p>
<p>yay thanks theskylitup! i put that too</p>
<p>haha i know, me too, peaches134</p>
<p>what do you guys think about having 2 examples for the essay?</p>
<p>These questions have been really bugging me.</p>
<ol>
<li>Reflective or Urgert?</li>
<li>The attitude of the black person towards books</li>
<li>“believing technology could change one’s life” demonstrated the author’s curiosity, defensiveness or naivete?..</li>
</ol>
<p>agree on “inflammatory”, “physical force”, “explicate a natural process”</p>
<p>@theskylitup
I chose “understate”, but now I think “overstated the similarity” is definitely correct –
Thank you for explanation
I hope you can score high in CR. I agree with you on almost all the other questions</p>
<p>winning seven gold medals is wrongly refering to olympics:
by winning is refering to Mark</p>
<p>Gosh man, why do you think the resemblence to a “biotech” dragon indicated that the dismantled thing was obsolete?</p>
<p>@ lordofcenturies,</p>
<p>I put “by winning” for this one</p>