March 2012 SAT I Critical Reading Thread

<p>msteiny
Yeah, I got that.
It started out with just saying a simple sentence about the writer’s image of Cole before she could see herself, then it amplified that by saying Cole’s face actually became her own face as well.
“amplification can refer to exaggeration — or stylistic vices” - Wiki</p>

<p>@Madbeast I’ve read the thread, misinterpreted your post slightly. No need to get touchy.</p>

<p>@tjhsst</p>

<p>I looked at myself through my sister. This was before I see into mirrors and my sister played with me…</p>

<p>This is generally what it said, the second sentence elaborates, thereby amplifying the preceding statement.</p>

<p>that was two sentences</p>

<p>I got “amplified the preceding statement” for one of the questions. </p>

<p>the one with girl connecting to the older sister was another question. the answer was that the passage describes the connection with older sister.</p>

<p>I agree with drac, yes it amplifies.</p>

<p>I thought the chest one was vital.
Ok, dark and tiger claws is more similar to sinister or imposing than “It contained the word” is similar to vital in my opinion.</p>

<p>Amplify because 2nd sentence talk about him thinking that he was his sister and this emphasized that he doesn’t know who he was, which is what the 1st sentence was about.</p>

<p>damn really
gah stupid mistake…</p>

<p>what does -2 and 1 omit look like?</p>

<p>Where did the main transition occur in the passage about chaplin. the beginning of the last paragraph of towards the end?</p>

<p>Other than that neatness passage the 2 preceeding vocab questions, cr went by smooth.</p>

<p>For the electorate passage (the easiest one for me) this is what I got</p>

<ol>
<li>Both authors agree that electorate system: something like impacts campaings </li>
<li>The last paragraph of passage 1 was: evenhanded</li>
<li>Which describes both: Passage 1 criticizes a system which passage 2 regards a misconception.</li>
<li>What does author of passage one think about the critics argument in passage 2: he thought they should present good solutions.</li>
<li>The reformers think the baseball analogy would be: flawed</li>
<li>What was the purpose of the analogy in passage 2: no changes or something</li>
<li>What does back most nearly mean: champion</li>
<li>What do the reformers think of the electorate college: believe that it will not represent the majority since candidates go for battleground states</li>
<li>What does passage 2 imply of popular elections: it will make multiple party’s and impede progress</li>
<li>Accident most nearly means: circumstances</li>
</ol>

<p>Space Passage</p>

<ol>
<li>The author mainly uses: analogiges</li>
<li>The purpose of the parenthesis was to: I put draw boundaries</li>
<li>The first few sentences purpose is to: dispel common misconception</li>
<li>purpose of last paragraph: reiterate a point or something</li>
</ol>

<p>Im surprised no one is talking about the neatness passage. Arguably the toughest passage in the entire cr. That one killed me.</p>

<p>What did you guys put for the sentence completion about the researcher? I had it down to rush/theorize and deliberate/work.</p>

<p>the transition was where she said that the number 132 would stick in her mind or something like that</p>

<p>^ deliberate and work cause it said that she didnt want to be rushed or something.</p>

<p>SAT200, I wrote when he said “Why…?” but not entirely sure. Between that and your answer</p>

<p>deliberate/work</p>

<ol>
<li>so it’s not substantiate?</li>
</ol>

<p>^ yeah it was 132</p>

<p>for the chaplin passage</p>

<ol>
<li>The lines where he watches the movie, marvels at it but at the same time doesnt like the repitition signifies: the viewing and outcome of something</li>
<li>The either and either statement shows the narrators: skepticism??</li>
<li>Which was a transition: 132 part</li>
<li>Most similar situation to last sentence: novel polishes novel numerous times </li>
<li>Charlie Chaplin is charactarized as: perfectionist</li>
</ol>

<p>I feel like both work. Doesn’t the sentence talk about not wanting to rush her research? If she rushes her theorizing, then she doesn’t have to rush her research. Then again, the other option works, whereas she can make her work deliberate (planned out/steady?) where “work” refers to the researching itself.</p>

<p>eagles
Neatness wasn’t that hard for me, but we all have our own strengths.
I remember one of the answers to neatness was that author of P1 would think of P2 argument with reservation or something like that since being messy does inhibit success.</p>

<p>eagles, for the electorate passage I agree with everything except the definition of “back” which I said it was substantiate. The critics of the electorate support the popular vote system and shortly after, the author talks about how they explained their argument to the unknowing public, which meaans substantiate or support argument.</p>