October 2009 SAT Critical Reading

<p>dubbyah, personally I think that answer choice is a distortion. I recall being stumped on that question, but ultimately something led me to decide it was admiration. pokemon3 seems to have it right: you’re supposed to look back on the passage, and his admiration seemed to parallel Cimabue’s more than discovery.
Does anybody have the actual passage?</p>

<p>If someone who has never seen someones art before leaves the room, comes back into the room and sees the art, and is surprised at the quality, then expresses a statement, in context, situated within an event (situation in an event being not over-analyzing but contextualization, an important element of correct critical reading interpretation) is this mere admiration of the art, or is it also a discovery (while still potentially containing admiration within a discovery)? The entire Cimabue story revolved around the concept of discovery, as does the whole rustic farm boy myth. Michelangelo’s master’s statement may have involved admiration but it was an utterance stemming also from being taken aback by seeing the boys art for the first time. In my view, it is not distortion at all - (I’m well aware of overreading and potentially introducing a subjective interpretation into the text) given the context of leaving the room and coming back into it; the keyword ‘exclaimed’ also lends value to my interpretation. There’s a difference between subjectively interpreting and drawing erroneous conclusions and correctly situating a quote in context to make analogy to another passage in general. This is just my rationale behind why I answered the way I did, and, I assume, why others who answered similarly did so too.</p>

<p>^It refers to Michelangelo as an “art student”.</p>

<p>there was a question like it had one answer choice that said “a chef tasting a new herb”. anybody know the answer?</p>

<p>^singer reading yet again the same arrangement of notes</p>

<p>everyone who think theyve failed the CR like me say ‘hear hear’</p>

<p>ok so if anyone is nice enough to remember (so I dont have to read through all the pages)</p>

<p>What is the general consensus for?</p>

<p>was it sense of foreboding or something like histrionically perspective</p>

<p>god DAMNIT</p>

<p>does anyone remember a passage about how the author came to take a certain profession because she thought she had a talent for it or something not necessarily that she enjoyed it? i wasnt sure of how to interpret that passage</p>

<p>the question’s wording was: </p>

<p>The master’s statement is most ANALOGOUS to which element in of the giotto story.</p>

<p>so you’ll have to match up the corresponding parts, i put discovery; it was the first time the master discovered M.Angelo’s talent. backed up by the fact that he left the room, and before that, angelo’s talent was not discovered yet.</p>

<p>to really ‘admire’ something, don’t you have to go beyond the first impression? admire’s a pretty strong word. i think the master’s words are in themselves saying that M.Angelo has talent that was just ‘discovered’, not that he necessarily ‘admired’ them. The statement just says that angelo’s work was great (because > than master means, angelo has a master’s skill himself), but not necessarily that the master ‘admired’ it. It is not stated in the passage, for all we know the master could be envious of Michelangelo’s talent.</p>

<p>That’s why i think the discovery is most ANALOGOUS to the giotto story.</p>

<p>@mabs: what q was thaT?</p>

<p>i think its chef tasting a new herb. the author was suprised by the book to see how ignorant he was before. a chef who tastes and herb for the first time was ignorant of the taste. the singer reviewing the same songs has no realization of something new.</p>

<p>@mabsjen - I put foreboding because I think it used a semi-rhetorical question (what would he think were he alive now) in order to create a sense of foreboding, not just as a literal matter-of-fact question, but that question and also the one above it asking about the 3d plot of 2d data created dilemmas for me when it came to how literally to interpret the text.</p>

<p>@cs: the question was asking about the ANTICIPATED images in the book, not the ones he actually saw.</p>

<p>@dubbyah: that was “historical speculation.” he is speculating how a historical figure would react.</p>

<p>For the daughter one, when it asked what her parents were thinking when her friends was doing this and that.</p>

<p>What was the answer to it?</p>

<p>but I thought the passage was lighthearted - isnt foreboding implying something dark and suspenseful?</p>

<p>and I put singer because i think the lines that were quoted were about how cliche the pictures are so</p>

<p>therefore, a singer reading over familiar lyrics is similar</p>

<p>cs,</p>

<p>The answer was a singer looking over a familiar song since the questions that the question referred to served as things that he was already used to seeing.</p>

<p>Yeah, I got the foreboding one wrong, it seems - it must have been historical speculation…</p>

<p>What about the one about the 3d plot method’s interest on the geologist? Was it its impact on modern technology?</p>

<p>I agree with you cs. And I had serious trouble with the Giotto-Michelangelo comparison.</p>

<p>Michelangelo’s tutor comes back and remarks on how awesome his painting is; the remarks stem from his admiration.
Similarly, Cianbue is so impressed by Giotto’s art that he offers an invitation to the young boy, out of admiration for his natural talent.</p>

<p>If both the remarks and the invitation arise as a result of both of their admiration, then isn’t there a strong correlation between the two?</p>

<p>And yes, I know that I used admiration twice, for those people who like to be captious rather than edifying. But I see a strong connection here, and no one else has mentioned it.</p>

<p>can someone list all the passages that were on the CR? i dont think we discussed them all</p>