<p>what about hte fair days part--and what the implication of "fair days"?</p>
<p>I believe I put self-sacrifice, hammer, but I don't really remember the question. Wasn't it something like, what was his offering of the chair, given the facts that he was enjoying it and that his action "gave a good deal of merit to his civility?" Well, he was enjoying something, but in a courteous act, he was willing to give it up, thus being willing to sacrifice his own desire. That's what I saw in it, anyway. Obviously "self-sacrifice" wasn't a major idea of the passage, but I believe (I'm not sure) it told us to focus on those facts/lines/whatever. Your answer, juenatics, makes me think I misread the question, though.</p>
<p>As for the cynicism one, I don't really think the narrator was criticizing Arthur for any lack of sincerity, but rather commending him for his "civility." Even if this commendation wasn't extremely positive, it was hardly scornful, and being willing to give up the chair, sincere or not (which, again, I believe he was, but even if he wasn't), is certainly not an action motivated by self-interest. In fact, I'd say this occurence helped me eliminate cynicism.</p>
<p>You honestly don't think the narrator's portrayal of Arthur was amusing, though?</p>
<p>"sitting next to the fire with a degree of enjoyment"
"he sat down again with much satisfaction"</p>
<p>To me, those images are rather amusing.</p>
<p>Furthermore...</p>
<p>"Arthur was... by no means indisposed to talk"</p>
<p>Looking at his dialogue, is this not an amusing understatement?</p>
<p>I also disagree about the theif and knowing something about jewelry. You are obtaining that interpretation from one comment. Overall, I think his attitude toward the rich is more prevalent throughout the piece. I couldn't find the passage anywhere on the internet, so I'm going off of memory... His criticism of the maid simply seems to emphasize his criticism of the mother, which in turn further establishes his opinion on the rich. The maid is also somewhat of a symbol for the unwise allocation of responsibility by the mother, and (since maids are primarily associated with the rich) the rich as a whole. Also, his comment about how poverty hardened him develops his opinions about the rich by contrast. He never said it, but didn't the question ask what can be "inferred" from the passage (or something like that)? Inferring is more than just looking for a spot where he says "I sure know a lot about jewelry," or "man, I hate those rich people." Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I think looking at that one comment and saying that the passage implies he knows a lot about jewelry is reading into it too little.</p>
<p>Hmm.. The answers seem to vary on this test quite a bit. Some of us will be wrong, others will be right, but most of this variance will even out eventually, and it will certainly help the curve. :D</p>
<p>shir, i agree with you on the 'self-sacrifice' thing, though i was very unsure of it because my perception of arthur was rather contrary to that. however, none of the other answer choices looked good in hindsight and that's the only one that fit.</p>
<p>i put amusement largely because of the author describing how charlotte hid behind his big frame (or that's what i read it as). it seemed like an amusing set of events.</p>
<p>i also put the rich and famous thing. i would go along with your lines of reasoning, shiro, but in truth, inference on the SAT is essentially finding what is stated. if the question asked "what can most reasonably be inferred", then it has to be the jewelry answer because it's the only thing you can justifiably infer without going beyond the true scope of the excerpt. that is all we can base our reasoning off of.</p>
<p>Heh, maybe I've been programmed by the English Lit AP test. I'm fairly certain that the jewelry answer would be wrong there. However, I still think we're right... The SATs do tend to be simplistic (the SATI more then SATII Lit, though... a question like that wouldn't even be asked on the SATI, and if it was, the answer would probably be jewelry... I think the SATII Lit is a little more complex than that, though), but that seems overly simplistic to me. We'll see.</p>
<p>Edit: Actually, we won't see, but... >_<</p>
<p>unless you get an 800 with nothing wrong lol</p>
<p>I'm anticipating a 730 score on the Lit test. I feel really good about that score, since I've been getting worse on practice tests (~700). But I was wondering if it would be worth retaking in November because in my SAT I, I got 800 CR. Would it be better to show more consistency, since the Lit test is basically CR on steroids? I don't want my scores to be all over the place.</p>
<p>yo i think you guys are wrong but it's cool i don't have time to construct a reply - but i'm pretty sure i'll get an ok score ... in the end this is all trivial anyways</p>
<p>actually on second thought:
look it's way too simple - the thief is able to recognize the material as gold and determine it's value - how can this NOT mean that he knows SOMETHING about jewelry (the answer for verbatim included the word SOMETHING not.. A LOT)? the fact he's hardened by poverty makes him able to justify wrongdoing to prop up his own socioeconomic status NOT take down the rich - he doesn't hate them, he's ultimately trying to make himself better and all his comments about the mother and the maid are used to justify his own wrong doing. inference is different from interpretative analysis - simply put there is no doubting the fact he knows a bit about jewelry, however the fact that he DETESTS the rich and the poor is not as clearly cut - he steals b/c he is poor not b/c he hates the people with money, he stole from the girl b/c she had jewelry not b/c he knew she was rich - his later analysis is just self-justification and the finding of rationale to ease his guilt - which we all agreed early was a correct answer for another question - a self fulfilling catharsis is not on par with your answer choice</p>
<p>second the narrator is being SARCASTIC when she commends arthur for his civility. the quote "sitting next to the fire with a degree of enjoyment" is juxtaposed with his "civility" in giving up to the chair ... here's what this implies, i think you guys are misunderstanding the essay: arthur appears happy in his chair, but desires to appear civil to the lady and gives it up; the narrator specifically recounts the happiness and satisfaction he feels when she declines - it's indirect sarcasm when he is characterized as "civil", meaning the narrator is HELLA cynical about his actual giving up of the chair (aka doubting his sincerity), since he was obviously comfortable in another position</p>
<p>simply put: when the narrator says that it gave a great deal to his civility - that is sarcasm, not sincere praise</p>
<p>peace"</p>
<p>i put amusement. jane austen is not a cynical writer...it can't even be termed cynicism - she writes comedies of manners...even her most terrible descriptions are amusing, of fumbling and socially inept characters as in here...there is nothing 'cynical' about it...it is supposed to be humorous</p>
<p>for the mother's death one, i thought it added poignancy to the scene; as it became somewhat of a eulogy. I do not think it was a unique event, as most people in the world unfortunately lose their mothers at some point in their lifetimes.</p>
<p>---i thought that at first, but then his mother's death is a unique event in HIS life...the question doesn't necessarily ask about whether its unique in the entire world, but it may just be unique in his own experience...and that's definitely true</p>
<p>for fair days, i put that it is diff. from another day because it has less to do about the weather, and more to do about the grains still lying in the field</p>
<p>hey that's a great explanation. let's see...anyone know the scale off the top of your head? for this test</p>
<p>~90% 800
~75% 700</p>
<p>His rationalizing of his actions largely stems from his attitude toward the rich. The fact that it's just him justifying what he did doesn't make his attitude any less prevalent. As for inference VS. analysis, inference is most often associated with drawing a conclusion from subtext and tone, not with direct reading. When a text infers something, it usually hints at or implies it, not says it outright. I can definitely see your argument, but I still think my answer (and that of those who agreed with/I agreed with) is correct.</p>
<p>As for the other one, I don't think it was sarcasm. Sarcasm (just like cynicism) implies contempt, which is simply not present. </p>
<p>"Charlotte's place was by Arthur, who was sitting next to the fire with a degree of enjoyment which gave a good deal of merit to his civility in wishing her to take his chair."</p>
<p>This does not say that Arthur was attempting to appear civil, and it wasn't criticizing him for doing so, it merely states that his willingness to give up his enjoyment supports a case for his civility. His relief when she does not take the chair is not surprising, ironic, or cynical, it is simply what is to be expected given the fact that he was enjoying the seat.</p>
<p>Edit: Oh, and for the mother one, didn't it say that it (the first sentence) was to emphasize the uniqueness of the events discussed in the rest of the passage (or something like that)? That's what I remember reading, and the event he discussed afterwards was commonplace, and simply used as an example of the themes he was referring to.</p>
<p>How many...if any...did you guys leave blank? And what is considered an acceptable number to leave blank and still score within the 700s?</p>
<p>dude, get a grip, you asked the same thing yesterday. Oh right, and i already answered your question. 45/60 approximately yields a 700. chill.</p>
<p>Can anyone remember the language that described the thief's apraisal of the necklace? It was a casual, almost throwaway line. But he essentially guessed by the look of the chain, that it was worth 14 pounds. To me, that makes the answer choice "knows something about jewlery" a better inference than "disdain for the rich." The latter seems too obvious to be an inference. He's willing to steal and contemplates murder. In most of his rationalizations, the narrator directly cites either the dire circumstances of poverty, or the vapid, conspicuous consumption of the rich.</p>
<p>It's a bu*****t question if this many of us are debating it.</p>
<p>I'm thinking about taking this SAT in November.. what is its level of difficulty in comparison w/ the other SAT II's? I'm currently doing very well in AP English and have done likewise throughout my entire HS career, yet I sorta suck at the SAT CR section (610 in May.. hoping for 650+ in October)... could I do well on this or is it painfully similar to the regular CR section?</p>
<p>I got 640 CR, but I aced literature. I think it's easier for some, and the curve's much nicer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a bu*****t question if this many of us are debating it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Literature is by nature interpretive, so an MC exam on it is bound to be "controversial".</p>
<p>Did anyone here take the Sunday SATII Literature?</p>
<p>nope, sorry. do any of these questions sound familiar, though?</p>
<p>Nope this definitely isn't the test i took.</p>