<p>no it was like first question it said according to both passages…</p>
<p>Npo what they disagreed on was how accurate and trustworthy historians are and whether history could be a valid source. What they agreed on was that people look to history… I think.</p>
<p>^ correct.</p>
<p>i put they agreed on that history affects the future. i think the question was asking what both passages implied, and that was the only answer that fit</p>
<p>it was the second of the two passages that was skeptical on historians reliability and the first one that supported it right?</p>
<p>yes (ten char)</p>
<p>pleaseeee tell me these are the same answer:</p>
<p>“What they agreed on was that people look to history… I think.”</p>
<p>“i put they agreed on that history affects the future. i think the question was asking what both passages implied, and that was the only answer that fit”</p>
<p>what about relevance of the past to the present</p>
<p>there was a question about what they agreed on, and then another question about what they disagreed on.</p>
<p>the agreeing one was that history affects the future, and the disagreeing one was the reliability of history.</p>
<p>I put “lack of a sustained tradition,” too, and I am pretty sure it was right. I am a former English teacher and a current SAT teacher. I read and reread that one to make sure.</p>
<p>I regret that I might not have read the oracle/charlatan question correctly, and I cannot find anyone who is confident about what the question said exactly. I put oracle, but your arguments for charlatan are correct if the question was about the entire passage and not about a specific line. Some students seem to think the question referred to line 1 only. If this is the case, then oracle is right because the author did not reveal his true feelings until later in the passage. </p>
<p>And for the sardonic/baffled debate, I am 99.99% sure the answer is sardonic. The word has many definitions, but “mocking” and “cynical” are the two that apply to its use in this question. The author was not baffled–his confusion was completely sarcastic. </p>
<p>I have taken the SAT twice before this (as an adult), and my critical reading scores have been 790 and 800. I haven’t taken the test in 2 years, though, so take my “unambiguous assertion” for what it’s worth…</p>
<p>hahah on a different note…was it flowery example to unambiguous fact…or facetious explanation to earnest assertion</p>
<p>facetious and assertion</p>
<p>yeah, i got facetious and assertion.</p>
<p>What was the question? Anyone remember the full sentence?</p>
<p>what are the 2 long passages considered?</p>
<p>they were the history passages.</p>
<p>i put they disagreed on relevance of history to present.</p>
<p>cause only passage 2 talked about historians.</p>
<p>short passage on psychics
the author started mokcing and then forcefully bashed ----- facetios and earnest assertion.
the author’s position ------ charlatans, if i remember right 
.</p>
<p>does anyone know where the passages on history are from? particularly the first one?</p>
<p>nevermind i found the first passage. it’s from Allen Nevin’s “The Gateway to History.” If you want to re-read it, you can find it here: <a href=“http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97878285[/url]”>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97878285</a> (the passage is from the first chapter)</p>