October cr: 800 critical reading scorer?

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
61

<p>Yeah, it did.</p>

62

<p>First result, but only previews are allowed, the book isn’t free.</p>

<p><a href=“coal nuer lock ourselves power electricity - Google Search”>coal nuer lock ourselves power electricity - Google Search;

63

<p>I’m swayed–caustic sounds more appropriate. Drats!</p>

64

<p>Passage 2: <a href=“http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html[/url]”>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

65

<p>^someone point out one part of the paragraph where the author is being sarcastic. I don’t see it at all.</p>

66

<p>Not so much sarcastic, I guess. The author just delivers a really cutting, critical argument that relies mostly on objective facts.</p>

<p>I really hope I’m wrong though, hahah.</p>

67

<p>"I scored 780 in March and I said</p>

<p>Independent
Vehement
Handling"</p>

<p>I agree with this guy’s answers and I scored 780 in May.</p>

68

<p>“15,000 premature deaths,” “right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site” are both mildly sarcastic. It’s certainly more critical than emotionally intoned. (I think that last parenthetical addendum about the Chinese miners was removed from the SAT, though).</p>

<p>I still wouldn’t be surprised if it goes either way, but I’m much more confident about my answer now.</p>

69

<p>^ Just because you and that guy/girl scored a 780 doesn’t mean it’s right or even that it’s probably right. The fact that you got a 780 proves you got questions wrong.</p>

70

<p>700 In June:</p>

<p>Instinctual (Fleece said that ideas were either you were born with or without, hence instincts)
Vehement
Handling</p>

71

<p>It wasn’t instinctual. He said that ideas “existed whether you liked them or not.” (or something like that). They exist regardless of whether you are thinking of them, hence independence from human consciousness.</p>

<p>Consensus does not ensure that a question is right. CC consensus is often wrong when it comes to CR (as can be seen with caustic/vehement… a number of people have come on and said that vehement is clearly the only possibility, and now that we have the passage it’s evident that, at the very least, the debate is not so obvious).</p>

72

<p>Hey cortana chill it’s just that the OP asked for 800 scorers to answer the question and I figured I was close enough so I put in my two cents.</p>

73

<p>^ I know i’m not frustrated or anything lol I’m just saying that whatever a high scorer says is not certain to be correct. that’s an important point in a thread like this.</p>

74

<p>yea i agree. I feel like I’m always taking standardized tests with you lol. Every thread on CC that I post on about SATs and stuff you’re on. Kinda wierd just sayin.</p>

75

<p>i guess, but it’s not too surprising. a lot of people take the sAT 2-3 times</p>

76

<p>Since we have the passage now, have you guys tried asking your parents for their opinion? That would be interesting, haha.</p>

77

<p>Their guess is as good as ours</p>

78

<p>Regarding the caustic/vehement question:</p>

<p>Caustic is defined as ‘severely critical or sarcastic’. The word is capable of referring exclusively to one of the two. </p>

<p>Vehement, on the other hand, means ‘zealous, ardent, impassioned’, which, although the author may have been, does not seem to be the intended answer, being that there was more objective, statistical evidence than blatant insult of coal etc. </p>

<p>Note that my choice of definitions ^ may reflect a personal bias (I chose ‘caustic’ myself). However, I still believe that caustic is more fitting for a rationalized, critical piece such as this.</p>

79

<p>Is the vehement/caustic question the same one that had an answer choice as emphatic or am I thinking of a diff. question? Cuz i remember putting emphatic for something…</p>

80

<p>I know someone that got an 800 twice, and he said it’s not even about being smart or a good analyzer. Just about having an extensive vocabulary and learning how CB creates answers that seem subjective, but really aren’t.</p>

<p>That being said, it’s vehement, not sure why there’s such a big argument around this one. I don’t think any literature about fuel sources could even be written in a caustic manner. </p>

<p>Caustic is like someone saying “Mary sure does bring a lot of comfort to Paul’s heart” and then someone responding “That’s not the only part of Paul she’s bringing comfort to”</p>

<p>It’s like a witty, dry, almost cynical way of speaking. Usually involves ad hominem approaches, meaning you have to be addressing a certain person.</p>