November 2010 SAT - Critical Reading

<p>Yes! I was so back and forth on the Halle Berry one. I put evocation ^^</p>

<p>^ same …evocation . </p>

<p>what about the one about the cardiologist, who kept trying to get medical research
?</p>

<p>What did you guys get for the harry potter sc?</p>

<p>blue2152001, I also get your answers. I am sure there are two versions of tests because my sister and I have different ones.</p>

<p>For the first CR section about bats and ecolocation, SC is a little difficult. I remember i put euphemism (about chocolate), interested (latter of a double one, about so----was he by the -----audience), confound (not sure about it. the question is like —assumptions, and another answer is extrapolate), miscellany.
For the passage about ecolocation, what is the subtitle for the philosophical paper? I put reflections on transcending human perspectives.
And for the pair short passage about green house effect, does anyone remember putting something like overblown?</p>

<p>Passage about college athlete: Last one, what is the purpose of last paragraph in passage 2? Summarize the body of evidence, reiterate earlier argument or shift to another term for discussion?
And what would both the student and critic most likely to agree? I put something about the sport is type of work.</p>

<p>@tjb
I put inert… which was completely wrong, I think. :(</p>

<p>yeah i believe it wasnt inert. see it was tough to decide because i didnt know if women’s health had anything to do with medical research. was it medical research about women’s health? …i based it off of the advocating thing, and assumed it was.</p>

<p>i dont remember exactly my answer tho, do remember the other choices?</p>

<p>Oh I said derivation for the chocolate one because they said it came from te latin word. Also about the audience one I put becalmed but I am pretty sure I got it wrong. I do remember putting confound and assumptions, and for the passage I said the subtitle was echolations or something along those lines but I might be wrong…</p>

<p>I can’t remember them. I was going to omit that one, but I went back a put inert, lol.</p>

<p>I put derivation, but I also put extrapolate (was between that and confound, darn it.) Also, I put the transcending human perspectives or w/e for the subtitle.</p>

<p>Also was one of the SCs renegade? It was about an artist forming an alliance or whatever. I was stumped on that one. Narrowed it down to 3 and chose renegade because I recognized it from DH =&lt;/p>

<p>I said the purpose was to summarize the body of evidence but wasn’t there another option like concede a point? That one confused me. And for the one that said what would they likely agree on what were the other options? I am not sure if I remember what I put.</p>

<p>OK - it is now confirmed that there were two different versions of today’s test. To avoid confusion lets use this thread for the CCers who had the following Critical Readings:</p>

<ol>
<li>Echolocation</li>
<li>College Athletes</li>
<li>Musician at school assembly</li>
<li>Mandarin Chinese lady is a talented artist</li>
</ol>

<p>@ crzygmer
I put philistine for that one I’m pretty sure it’s right.</p>

<p>I put derivation for the bit about chocolate coming from the Aztec word. I put renegade for the artist one, transcending human perspectives, and I seem to remember something with “confound”.</p>

<p>I had this version. What did you guys think? Hard? Medium? Easy?</p>

<p>I thought this was challenging. I would normally say it’d be a good curve, but I thought October was also challenging and the curve wasn’t anything amazing -_-</p>

<p>Much harder then October. I got stuck on some of the questions.</p>

<p>Let us add more!!
I think the sc part is easy: convenient, partisan+bias, dimunition, evocation… </p>

<p>2 short passages:
“that’s correct”: to conceed with previous solution
both about the increasing population
author2’s response to line X-X in passage 1: arguing that using technology to produce high-yielding crop can also achive the goal stated in passage 1 by using the chemicals.
relation: the passage 1 offers a solution, while passage 2 talk an alternative version of that solution (not the exact wording)</p>

<p>Passage about Caribbean Culture:
Government: motivated by commercial motives rather than cultural one
why talk about family and language? – To show a paradox set of attitudes
family: flexible and inclusive
language: tenacious and dynamic
a example of “cultural penetration”: idolization of Hollywood fimls by Japanese teenagers
—need reassesement</p>

<p>short passage:

  1. Settlement: --to have an engagement
  2. Woman is characterized by what? sides —complex character. I choose modest expection, not sure.
  3. The passage is about what? --his goal
  4. Fuction like? – an advisor</p>

<p>Passage about new farmhouse:
Newer farmhouses: --are enhanced by attractive surrounding/ offer the view of the countryside(The passage says: it did not took advantage of the out-side door)
the talk between “me” and father: part of ritual
parenthestical one : lack of irony or self-consciousness
my attitudes change: nostalgia to indifference
final question(Number 15): They are both attentive to what the other think.</p>

<p>Passage about quantum physics:
the final paragraph: not sure about two answers: show the intellectual effects of a physicist/ show how visualization changes the working style of a quantum physcist.</p>

<p>Passage about deception:
differences between 2 authors: Author1 hold a more accepting attitude toward deception
passage 1 and 2 differs greatly in: E: Author 2 talks about the immoral…
shattered?-- discomfort encountered by physicists
at the beginning: could/ should say: conceivable vs beneficial
calculations=? I choose plans
What do the author 1 and 2 do at the final paragraph of their passages? –-Make generalizations about the nature of lying?
Line 56-58 “ lying makes them habitualize to deception and their brain atrophies”–I choose lying … the fuction of … can not remeber it.
The attitude show in the ()about red light: nonchalant
Compared to author1, author2’s tone is more…—Humorous, analytical, judgemental …. I choose humorous, not sure.</p>

<p>let’s get a list going?</p>

<p>Last test I took was in June, and -3 was a 780. This test seemed harder to me, so hopefully there will be a better curve.</p>

<p>@lovewangzi: Yep, I got that version too.</p>

<p>For the chocolate, I also put derivation because they talked about it coming from latin. about the audience, I think I said something about he was — by the rude audience. Though I got those two wrong, the answers were miscellany (about the collection of various works about Asian American culture) and I’m pretty sure confound (something about disproving earlier presumptions?).</p>

<p>For the college athlete… ugh, I thought that one was the worst. For the last paragraph I was debating between reiteration and shift, though I don’t think he really presented a new body of evidence… I ended up putting reiteration. There was another option to conceded a point to counterargument, but I don’t think that was the most correct.
I also put the work for the former college athlete and critic. Some other options were that people generally regard athletics as more important than academics and can’t remember, sorry.</p>

<p>I said another title could have been “Reflections about Transcending Human Perception” or something like that because I thought the article was supposed to be talking about human perception in general versus just bats.</p>

<p>For the greenhouse, I also put “overblown.”</p>

<p>Does anyone know, for the physicists with the 20 questions game, what would the author be relating the modern physicist to? The questioner or the rules governing the group’s decisions (I put the latter).</p>

<p>For the artist, I said renegade because it was about her siding with the nonconformists, which made her a “de facto renegade.”</p>