<p>“On top of that, coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone”</p>
<p>“Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site.”</p>
<p>Really? There isn’t animosity in those 2 statements alone?</p>
<p>
This is my problem with vehement. The author wasn’t like fuming mad at coal, but he was “bitter” about it in his criticism, in that he thinks it damages the environment and is dangerous to people - that “The consequences aren’t pretty.”</p>
<p>“I picked caustic though, because he was speaking shrewdly, but not out of intense anger or anything. And he was critical, vehement is negative in terms of anger emotion, caustic is CRITICAL.”</p>
<p>LOL. No offense, but you’re nearly completely wrong…</p>
<p>At this point, let’s not call someone “nearly completely wrong” without logical refutation.</p>
<p>Nope, no animosity whatsoever. Fire, passion, and alarm – yes. Animosity, no.</p>
<p>I hate you and your silly little name, cortana. <- That’s animosity. That’s bitter.</p>
<p>Coal-fired plants emit a great amount of waste, and do you know what’s worse? The waste isn’t even being treated properly! <- that’s vehement. It may be critical, but caustic is not related to critical.</p>
<p>Well, vehement is not negative nor is it angry. Caustic has nothing to do with speaking shrewdly. While caustic might be the right answer, I am saying his explanation for it is pretty flawed.</p>
<p>This debate is like the 1/54 vs 1/108 debate for last october’s mathematics section. Chances are this debate can will not end until October 19 at 12 midnight; there is just too much at stake to be wrong.</p>
<p>“severely critical” is one definition of caustic… “I hate you and your silly little name, cortana” is an impassioned, vehement statement.</p>
<p>Also, “animosity” could be either “rancor” or “bitterness” - either vehement or caustic. That is not what this tone question was differentiating between. The author clearly did not like coal power.</p>
<p>these question wars are stupid… 90% of the debaters are subconsciously biased towards the answer they picked on test day.</p>
<p>Just curious MitDuke, do you remember what the question was? I’m interested to take a look.</p>
<p>Yeah exactly, as jd989898 says. We’ll find out in 19 days.</p>
<p>MAybe sooner. I emailed the collegeboard test question service about the ambiguity of this question. I pointed out the enormous number of students that had a problem with the question and the ambiguity of the paragraph and of the choices “vehement” and “caustic.”</p>
<p>I also asked whether the question could be tossed and what was the right answer marked by ETS. I hope I get a satisfactory response.</p>
<p>cortana, how dare you discuss the test content?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1011104-october-2010-math-sat-thread.html?highlight=october+2010[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1011104-october-2010-math-sat-thread.html?highlight=october+2010</a></p>
<p>Read through the link above… the 1/54 vs 1/108 debate is just like this year’s vehement vs caustic debate
…pg 61 is were it really heats up</p>
<p>@notanengineer I’m actually a bit worried about pointing that out lol. But I would give up my house if CollegeBoard and ETS aren’t aware of the discussions of administered SAT and SAT IIs on this site.</p>
<p>There was no ambiguity at all. Caustic is the correct answer.</p>
<p>^ Maybe about the passage then. But there is something. look at this debate lol</p>
<p>No, I think we can all agree caustic was just too strong a word, and vehement was too weak a word.</p>
<p>edit- I mean too weak an answer, not word</p>
<p>Caustic was the correct answer. </p>
<p>/debate. </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>What if the answer was another word that we carelessly overlooked or didn’t realize what it meant :):):)</p>