<p>There is thorough evidence suggesting that the author meant for the information to be taken literally. I know it is hard to comprehend an answer that is not the one that you chose- I have grappled with the same situation before on the SAT.</p>
<p>I suppose you’re correct; however, the tone of the sentence made me laugh out loud during the test. I found it completely inappropriate for the essay, even before I saw the question. I felt that the author was joking…</p>
<p>What is your strategy for reading? I seem to struggle with it. I just checked the questions and looked for the answers in the passage. I think I did alright, but is there a beter strategy?</p>
<p>My strategy is to read through the passage first at a quick pace but at the same time trying to understand everything going on in the passage. Then I go to the questions.</p>
<p>The best strategy is to quick-read the passage. Once you’re good enough at this you can answer 50% of the questions definitively without even looking back. </p>
<p>I think the literal vs metaphorical argument is just a little moot…The river was metaphorically impossible to find? I mean how so? </p>
<p>Just because the common use of literal is against exaggeration - aka “He’s literally 8 feet tall!” - there’s no reason to believe that exaggerations can’t be LITERALLY interpreted, which is the essence of the question.</p>
<p>hmmmmmmmmmmmm</p>
<p>Thequestionmark: And, by your argument, how would it be literally impossible to find? That seems more unfathomable to me than using the statement in question as a metaphor for why a cleanup was necessary.</p>
<p>On the Edison passage, it said the word “peculiarly” meant what the way it was used… “oddly” was a choice, but I really felt that it was “distinctly”, so that’s what I put … does anyone have an idea about this?</p>
<p>Definitely agree that it was distinctly. He was distinctly an American inventor. (I could explain why he was, if you wanted me to, but that evidence was provided in the passage. He wanted to create inventions that dealt with current problems and made life easier, not to mention his American values and ambition.</p>
<p>@Skaggs
I think you are misunderstanding what it means for the river to be covered up. These aren’t just bridges here and there - it’s as the passage said - the river was so obscured that one would have difficulty finding it. Why do you think that it’s impossible to “literally” cover up and river? </p>
<p>And if you say it’s hard to fathom - read the passage and look at the picture that was provided. It wasn’t an exaggeration really by any means…</p>
<p>I agree with skaggs in that it was a metaphorical explanation.</p>
<p>For perhaps the 4th time, my argument was not that it was not literally covered; rather, it was that it was not literally difficult to find. </p>
<p>Thank you NewAccount.</p>
<p>I suppose that either way, I was and am confused about the question. I still feel as though both work, and not because I want to be correct. The river could have been covered over by construction, true, but the author could have also included the phrase as a metaphorical reason for why a cleanup was necessary. Again…because “Providence’s rivers had become fouled by sewage and industrial waste…”</p>
<p>That being said, the picture does show evidence that meets your answer. However, we were not allowed to view the picture for “historical proof” of the account. Rather, we were to rely on tone and intention of the author…both of which support a metaphorical account over a literal one. The river was not literally difficult to find. That was a metaphorical explanation of why a cleanup was needed - REGARDLESS of what needed to be removed (construction, sewage, whatever).</p>
<p>I hope that this better helps you understand my argument. Personally, I truly do not care about being correct. I’m just happy that I am able to provide evidence from the materials that we were given in the test that supports my answer.</p>
<p>It was fouled by sewage and waste.Not covered. Besides, most of that stuff sinks, so I doubt it would be metaphorical.</p>
<p>“containing or charged with noxious matter” (fouled) seems more plausible than unable to locate.</p>
<p>Reading was definitely the hardest section; my opinion… I think I missed 11 >.< that’s still like a 26/27… The science was probably the easiest then the math then English. The English was easy but I kept second guessing myself. The math was a joke… Haha hopefully I did well.</p>
<p>Anyone remember what letter they had as the last question? I think it was an ‘EXCEPT’ question about the canines. Time was called right after I read it, so I just blindly guessed. :/</p>
<p>If someone could remember any part of the question, I would be able to remember…</p>
<p>One of the answer choices was “provided homes for kangaroos and some other animal”? Lol. I think the general idea of the question was something like “the burrows had an effect on all EXCEPT…”</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure I said anything except isolated areas of packed soil for that one. I found the others in the passage. even though it seems plausible.</p>
<p>Something about soil.</p>