<p>I guess I’ll throw myself into this as well and say that I think it was vehement. The author clearly felt very strongly about the inferiority of coal, which is why he wrote the passage in such a self-righteous way. Caustic comments are extremely mean uses of sarcasm and generally function to hurt the recipient’s feelings (to use kindergarten vocab :)). With this being considered, vehement seems to be the proper choice.</p>
<p>Of course, I may be wrong. We’ll see.</p>
<p>Haha this and the new Zealand question are such hot topics!!!</p>
<p>There’s no debate about the New Zealand question–everyone agrees that “when” is incorrect. Some people argue that “had” is also incorrect, but it was definitely used correctly.</p>
<p>But yeah, vehement vs. caustic is still open…</p>
<p>lol, I feel like i’m responsible for all the vehemence that I’ve seen here today.
It’s okay though. That’s how you know you’re part of the CC community :)</p>
<p>Also - we won’t know on October 20th, unfortunately. QAS comes in a month after that I think? We only get our scores online the 20th, and it’s possible to get a 800 with a couple wrong, unfortunately. While I care about scores, I’m much more interested in the right answer (or at least the answer CB calls right)…</p>
<p>And Cortana - great job taking the initiative to email CB!
Could we argue the handling/execution and the independent of human consciousness one/presuppose the instinctual one too?
Those are pretty ambiguous as well… :</p>
<p>Execution is “The technique or style with which an artistic work is produced or carried out.”
To me, handling seemed wrong, for some reason. </p>
<p>And I already explained why I picked the “presupposed the instinctual” one – because Fleece clearly says that Ideas were around before music, before emotions…
SO CONFUSED
Pretty sure I’m gonna die from the suspense before QAS arrives.</p>
<p>I don’t really think either of those two are that ambiguous. The handling vs execution one wasn’t referring to how the novel was produced. If it was it would have been executed but it was referring to her treatment of the woman’s story. The way she “handled” it.</p>
<p>And the presupposed the instinctual was right . I initially put “Ideas are independent of human consciousness” but when I looked back it didn’t say that ideas existed without people but it explicitly stated that ideas came before the the instinctual nature of music that the narrator claimed to have. The definition of presuppose is “Require as a precondition of possibility or coherence” and that definitely seemed to support Fleece’s view that music couldn’t exist without ideas.</p>
<p>HERE’S THE QUOTE FROM THE PASSAGE:</p>
<p>Music is instinct dignified by instruments and voice. Music is howling in tune. The Guts come first, and there is no disinterestedness, as in actual Idea.”
“What would that be like?”
“Idea? An idea is something which exists already and does not care whether you like it or not. </p>
<p>Music is instinct; Ideas are not music; Ideas are not instinct…
I feel like this is one of those Level 5’s that 90% get wrong, lol
Everyone else is saying “independent of human consciousness”… but I’m just not seeing it.</p>
<p>@classic - the reason why so many (myself included) believe that ‘independent of human consciousness’ is the correct answer is to be found in these lines:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fleece’s saying that ‘an idea is something which exists already’ allows one to infer that ideas exist independently, not as intangible, abstract notions that can only be conjured up by the workings of the human mind (as most would believe). Therefore, Fleece is implying that ideas are not created by conscious human thought processes, but are rather autonomous entities ‘floating’ around, waiting for human minds to find them.</p>
<p>What was the “treatment” or “handling” question, guys?
I was looking on the supposedly consolidated list, and I see:
Treatment = Handling
and below that shaping baker’s life. I thought they were the same question, but I guess not.</p>
<p>@Classic, disinterested means free of bias and self interest. Music is not free of bias and self interest. Ideas are. Hence independent of human consciousness</p>
<p>You can’t control ideas either so which further proves the answer</p>
<p>I see where classicgirll is coming from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it exists already, maybe he is saying it sort of exists from birth…it is innate; hence instinctual. </p>
<p>Honestly I could see this one go either way. Now that is a disinterested idea.</p>
<p>^No. The flaw with many critical reading arguments is saying that the passage implies something that it doesn’t. The passage says that ideas are independent of human existence. That doesn’t mean it’s an instinct. </p>
<p>Also, talked to a CR genius today and he said it’s vehement/handling/independent of human thought/gains losses/fundamental human quality. He’s never wrong with CR stuff lol.</p>
<p>For that independent one I put preconscious creativity or something. I put A. Not sure if its right</p>
<p>Web definitions</p>
<pre><code>any chemical substance that burns or destroys living tissue
acerb: harsh or corrosive in tone; “an acerbic tone piercing otherwise flowery prose”; “a barrage of acid comments”; “her acrid remarks make her many enemies”; “bitter words”; “blistering criticism”; “caustic jokes about political assassination, talk-show hosts and medical ethics”; "a sulfurous …
of a substance, especially a strong acid; capable of destroying or eating away by chemical action
</code></pre>
<p>wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn</p>
<pre><code>(caustically) in a caustic vitriolic manner; “he addressed her caustically”
</code></pre>
<p>wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn</p>
<p>Caustic wins</p>
<p>If ideas exist “already,” then they exist whether or not you think are alive to think of them - this one doesn’t get much more clear. The sentence says the answer. People are overthinking and inferring. You aren’t meant to get the answer by contrasting ideas with music because it directly says the answer in reference to ideas. This is the SAT, not an intricate rhetorical document that you have to analyze for your English class.</p>
<p>We have the passage for vehement/caustic. Please don’t cite a “CR genius” because people are fallible and it’s understandable that a lot of people would put vehement (not considering the less evident definitions of caustic, not noticing the irony in the author’s tone, assuming that the paragraph’s tone must be a synonym of “emphatic” like that of the two passages together). But when you consider the sum of what the words actually mean and go back to the paragraph, you can see that he speaks bitterly, critically, and sarcastically but not emotionally.</p>
<p>I dont think its caustic mainly because it can be seen as a “extreme” answer choice. Does anyone remember the other 10 or so answers? One we are missing is the first nuke question like the answer was modest something</p>