<p>@steven</p>
<p>How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsiepop?
The world may never know…
… the CB answers to this test. :(</p>
<p>Cole: Quote starting at end of page 145 [Freud</a> upside down: African American literature and psychoanalytic culture - Badia Sahar Ahad - Google Books](<a href=“http://books.google.com/books?id=fja3MkrNuTYC&pg=PA145&dq=i+saw+my+sister+before+i+saw+myself+mirror+cole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xNteT_D0BKf50gGCuKC1Bw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=i%20saw%20my%20sister%20before%20i%20saw%20myself%20mirror%20cole&f=false]Freud”>Freud Upside Down: African American Literature and Psychoanalytic Culture - Badia Sahar Ahad - Google Books)</p>
<p>@lanaryu
my calculus class is actually doing a rate project that involves counting the amount of licks to get to the center of a tootsiepop then doing rate of circumference decreasing or whatnot. when we do the project, the world will know.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember anything more about the anomalous sentence completion question? Like some of the other choices to the problem? Thanks!</p>
<p>I remember something about abnormal skull size, but I don’t know any of the choices. Sorry!</p>
<p>Yea I know, I’m just trying to figure out if I got that question right. I forget what I put.</p>
<p>“Poet polishes flawless sonnet multiple times”
does anyone remember the other choices for this one? Was there a choice of movie maker using a scene a couple times to achieve natural effect?</p>
<p>@stevenydc Yeah, I remember one of the choices was a filmmaker re-shooting scenes until he achieves a realistic effect or something like that. </p>
<p>For my answer choice I picked the author who writes many stories but never finishes them</p>
<p>@stevenydc</p>
<p>Along with the novelist who never finishes, there was a comedian who performs the same routine multiple times and always pleases the audience, and an athlete who doesn’t practice yet still performs well in competitions. I don’t remember the last one.</p>
<p>In the chaplin question, the passage went something like:</p>
<p>“Either Chaplin was not as perfect as I thought he was (a possibility that could not be dismissed), or my father was lying to me (not an impossibility either).”</p>
<p>Skepticism seems to be the general consensus, which makes me tend to believe that was the answer, however, I believe I answered with “neutrality”. Neutrality, being synonymous with impartial and unbiased, could very well describe that sentence. The question was “What was the <em>purpose</em> of this line?” Unfortunately for me, it appears by the general tone that skepticism was the answer. I feel this question is unfair and ambiguous if that is true, assuming I remember the passage correctly. How are we supposed to interpret “purpose” as the the tone or the literal translation? How am I supposed to know the intent of the author except via what is written on the page?</p>
<p>If we analyze this sentence, we see the presentation of two conflicting ideas of which the author has no prejudice or bias towards, which is explicitly mentioned. Surely, the in-brackets content clearly makes the answer to this question “Neutrality”, no? If we remove the in-brackets content the sentence reads as follows:</p>
<p>“Either Chaplin was not as perfect as I thought, or my father was lying to me.”</p>
<p>This shows skepticism: doubt about what is actually the truth. It also shows neutrality: impartiality towards multiple ideas. Once the bracketed content is added “(not to be dismissed) and (not an impossibility either)”, it makes the author appear even more neutral.</p>
<p>Any thoughts, arguments, rants, etc?</p>
<p>@ pnutbutter: I had the same reasoning and also ended up putting “neutrality.” - glad to see that I’m not the only one who was thrown off by the question lol. I feel like “skeptical” might be the best answer but that there’s also some support for neutrality as you pointed out.</p>
<p>The bracketed content don’t show neutrality. If they did, it’d be along the lines of “(but he’s always perfect)” and “(he usually tells the truth)”. They merely demonstrate the narrator’s paradigm shift from perceiving the actor as perfect to imperfect. No other side of the argument.</p>
<p>@lanaryu</p>
<p>Hi, I got only 9 wrong and omitted 1 on the SAT 2012 January for Critical Reading.</p>
<p>I got a 660 - harsh curve. Whatever. Just letting you know so you aren’t surprised.</p>
<p>Hey guys Im taking the sat in June after the one in march…didn’t do good on the Vocab in march so I wanna increase my Vocab to do good in the June one. So my question is this: should I buy both volumes of direct hits to study along with pr’s hit parade and rr’s Vocab?</p>
<p>And how did dh do in the march test? Anyone know?</p>
<p>@Lanayru</p>
<p>You ended with “no other side of the argument”. Perhaps I’m getting defensive and misinterpreting your statement, but this comes across to me as “What I’m saying is correct, there is no other interpretation.” Well, if we rationalize, your statement was irrational. Clearly, there is another view and a supportive argument, as I have just made one. Perhaps you didn’t mean for your statement to be taken literally, however, if we are going to have a rational debate, reason is of the upmost importance. You make it all too easy to dismiss the possibility that you have any ability to use logic. Your use of inappropriate and arrogant statements injures your argument. If I misinterpreted “No other side of the argument”, I apologize. Please clarify.</p>
<p>If the bracketed content included what you suggested, the sentence could read as:
“Either Chaplin was not as perfect as I thought (but he’s always perfect!), or my father was lying to me (but he usually tells the truth).”</p>
<p>If this was the content in the brackets, skepticism would be the answer. Why? The first part “he’s not as perfect as I thought” and “but he’s always perfect” are two conflicting statements. They show, doubt, or skepticism. The second section includes, “my father was lying to me” and “but he usually tells the truth”, another set of conflicting statements that show incredulity, skepticism. </p>
<p>This content does not show neutrality, as there is a clear bias towards the belief Chaplin is perfect, and the father is truthful. True neutrality, would show bias towards neither argument. This can be simply accomplished by putting the original content in the brackets, from the question. (not to be dismissed) and (not an impossibility either). This content says about both parts of the sentence: both of these ideas are totally possible.</p>
<p>Seemingly the author does not know the truth, but at least he is considerate of all possibilities. Neutral, unbiased, impartial = neutrality.</p>
<p>You incorrectly assume that the author at this point perceives the actor as imperfect. By stating two distinct possibilities and stating that he believes either could be possible, he demonstrates that he has not yet accepted that Chaplin is imperfect. </p>
<p>If there is a logical argument to refute this reasoning, I’ll gladly listen. Unfortunately, your last response was filled with logical fallacies and lacked insight.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>@pnutbutter</p>
<p>The brackets made me lean twoard skepticism. The sentences before and after it essentially gave it an air of skepticism more than neutrality. </p>
<p>Honestly, we have to go back and reread the passage and then try and answer the question. I wouldnt be surprised if this question gets pulled.</p>
<p>@eagles94</p>
<p>I don’t know how the brackets convey skepticism, as argued below, but I do agree with your point about context. Considering the question was asking for the “purpose”, the context is most likely highly relevant to the answer. I still feel that as an isolated sentence neutrality is conveyed, however, in the context skepticism may very well be most applicable answer.</p>
<p>@stephen
The one who will be surprised is YOU 
Jk, but what exactly am I suppose to be astonished by? A harsh curve? It’s ok, I got a 750 in Jan… if all else fails I’ll take the super score.</p>
<p>@pnutbutter
by “no other side…” I meant what the author was stating… he didn’t acknowledge another side to the problem (of Chaplin being not perfect or the other; of father being wrong or correct). There are other ways that most other people arrived at “skepticism” so read other people’s posts.</p>
<p>“Neutrality” is generally used for describing the tone of science/factual articles. </p>
<p>And we’re suppose to answer questions in context.</p>
<p>I guess we’ll know the answers in 11 days~</p>
<p>[Keep</a> the Electoral College | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty](<a href=“http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/keep-the-electoral-college/]Keep”>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/keep-the-electoral-college/)</p>