<p>Conversely, how does the author characterize the army as “snide”? </p>
<p>snide: derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner.</p>
<p>Now, even if the question were worded in such a way that fits your memory, how was the author’s attitude toward the army “snide”? That seems like a very extreme word for the SAT. It is obvious that he has somewhat of a negative atittude towards these people, but does the author, in any way, show any type of “derogatory” or “demeaning” tone? Rather, he simply states the opposition’s point and counters with his own. He even acknowledges toward the end that is a correlation between ethics and morals and academics, but that the focus should be more on academics.</p>
<p>I guess it could be argued that something that was said about “save the world” can be considered snide to an extent, but that is based on the assumption that your interpretation of the question was correct.</p>
<p>The point here is not about the definition of either snide or pedantic. It is whether the question was asking us to describe the author’s TONE in characterizing the army (in which case, snide is the answer, and I’m hoping it is) or whether it was asking us to describe how the author characterized the army (in which case snide wouldn’t make sense).</p>
<p>The author’s characterization of the army was “snide.” (meaning not that he characterized them as snide, but in a snide way)</p>
<p>The authorized characterized the army as snide. </p>
<p>You know what…even if the question were worded in a way that asked “What word best describes the author’s characterization of the army?”, snide would make sense! </p>
<p>I am glad that we( FINALLY!!) agree!
PS: Do you remember all the choices of photography novelty( in sphinx passage)? I am fairly sure that I didn’t go nuts and didn’t choose anything else. But, you know, I am skeptical, and I want to confirm!</p>
<p>Okay. My bad. Like I said, I had originally put snide and once I thought I was wrong, I tried (in my subjectively biased state) to justify every possible reason snide was wrong and pedantic was correct. But now I can see that the question is nothing more than a tone question.</p>
<p>The word that fits modifies “characterization” as an adjective. Hence “snide characterization” is the author’s tone in characterizing the army, and as much as I tried to argue that the tone wasn’t snide, it indeed was from what I remember. Something about the author saying they think they can “save the world.” Makes perfect sense now. Whew.</p>
<p>Novelty was definitely the correct answer. Something about photos influencing the newness of different experiences, because it said something about people having never seen the Sphinx in a photo, whereas some other dude did see a photo of it.</p>
<p>For the relationship question of the Higher Education passage, I don’t think “P1 espoused the arguments presented by P2”. Obviously, P1 and P2 hold different perspectives though P2 made a qualification.</p>
<p>There is definately a question asked: the parenthesis in line … to … is to____. The answers were either articulate and mocking a position OR predict reaction and respond. What passage is this question in and which one is the correct answer?</p>
<p>Kohsuan and Mmerci, The answer was “P2 presents a view P1 finds objectionable”. sth like that, if we’re talking about the same question. Anyone care to shed to some light on this? Donnykim?
and the answer to other question is anticipate a reaction and respond.
PS: mmerci: you are mixing up two different choices, I think.</p>
<p>yes that would be correct. something about p2 supports a view that p1 is against. the point of contention it seems was whether passage 2 systematically disavows or discredits some findings or sth in passage 1. that one almost got me too but the problem was what ‘findings’ did p1 discuss? were they not assertions? </p>
<p>yall need to relax and stop thinking so hard about a test thats already done
drink some korean soju. thats what im about to do</p>
<p>Mmerci:yeah, I now remember. You are mixing up two choices. the answer choice you are talking about went sth like: P2 espouses on argument presented by p1. This is, obviously, wrong.
Donnykim: I too rejected that choice because of same reason.</p>
Comparing astronomers to musicians: share similar experiences as novices.
Simile between sky and lens: there is a perfect spot for viewing.
Reflective and informative.
Passage was mainly about an experience or development in a time of his life
Ephemeral but powerful.
In the passage involving telescopes, the author describes the following situation: “Once I received my new high-powered telescope, I could see the golden nebulas, Ursula major, hot and cold gases in distant galaxies, etc. These sights ballooned my system of what is plausible.” The author felt about seeing the universe through his new telescope is that he is hard to believe. (NOT difficult to take in)
See planets clear
Assertion followed by comical anecdote.</p>
<p>Higher education (Pared Passages)
Idealistic
Realistic
Fundamentally
the parenthesis in line … to … is to predict reaction and respond.
Helping children with their interests.
Snide
Higher education
Anticipate a response.
Method used in writing is repetition
P2 presents a view P1 finds objectionable
Similar thing in both passages- faculty’s role and coursework can lead to good civil character.</p>