<p>At the conclusion of the novel The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway, a young Midwesterner recently [arrived to] New York, [moodily] [watches] the blinking green light at the [tip of] Long Island. [No error]</p>
<p>For this question, I was stuck between A and E. I finally ended up telling myself that A sounds kinda right, and I was wrong. WHAT THE HELL CAN YOU REPLACE IT WITH TO MAKE IT SOUND RIGHT?</p>
<p>also... "for all their talk" is an acceptable idiom??????? i thought it was slanggggggg</p>
<p>relocated to ?? it’s kind of the same</p>
<p>arrived to jumps off the page to me as plain wrong. </p>
<p>Arrived in or Arrived at is really your only options with locations.
in is used for large scale locations, at is used in small scale.</p>
<p>oh…that makes more sense. i thought you were trying to explain that E was the right answer. lol, I couldn’t make much sense out of that</p>
<p>why don’t you look these words up in the dictionary?
these are NOT idioms. these are normal words</p>
<p>WRONG: a young Midwesterner recently arrived to New York
RIGHT: a young Midwesterner recently arrived in New York</p>
<p>“arrived in” is correct, and it is not an idiom. If you define each individual word, you will see why it is correct. To arrive is to reach a destination or achieve a position. you do this “in” a place. You reach for a cookie IN the cookie jar (“in” is used to indicate something within a place)… you already know this. you just don’t know how to apply it</p>
<p>“for all their talk” is not an idiom.
what makes this hard to understand?</p>
<p>a “talk” is a conversation. people have conversations. so they possess these conversations. “their” indicates possession. “all” indicates an entirety. “for” has many definitions. it can mean different things in different contexts.</p>
<p>the “for” in the sentence “For all their talk of change, they have not seriously contributed to the organization for quite a while” or “You can do it for all I care” means “in spite of” or “disregarding.”</p>
<p>now “for all I care” can be considered an idiom because its literal meaning differs from how people commonly use the phrase. the literal meaning is “in spite of all I care” or “without regard to what I care about.” What people usually mean by “for all I care,” however, is “as I don’t care” (They can starve for all I care). </p>
<p>There are rarely any real idioms on the SAT</p>
<p>Crazy Bandit, I think you are wrong. Idiomatic phrases appear often in the SAT, and are usually the most difficult questions. They have no logic behind them, you just have to know them. For example: To frown AT or frown UPON. Either work gramatically, but frown at is wrong because it is unidiomatic</p>
<p>Arrive to is unidiomatic. Arrive at or Arrive in is the better choice</p>
<p>No, crazybandit is actually right. It’s not an idiom; saying “to” instead of “at” or “in” doesn’t work with the verb because it’s inconsistent with the verb’s meaning.
Saying “I arrived” means that you are at the location. Therefore, you can’t say “I arrived to New York”. It must be “I arrived in New York”, meaning that you are at the location. “in New York” specifies where you had arrived.
It’s basically the opposite of “I went”, because this signifies the process of going (in the past tense) in contrast of “I arrived”. You can say “I went to New York”, but you can’t say “I went in New York” because that changes the meaning.</p>
<p>“There are rarely any real idioms on the SAT” - crazybandit</p>
<p>“Crazy Bandit, I think you are wrong… To frown UPON. Either work gramatically, but frown at is wrong because it is unidiomatic” - RAlec114.</p>
<p>Hence, the use of “rarely.”</p>