Page 393 BB test 2 sec 10

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>It is a myth that mathematicians are (absorbed by abstractions and therefore) have no practical interests. </p>

<p>It is a myth that mathematicians are (so absorbed in abstractions that they) have no practical interests. </p>

<p>It is a myth that mathematicians are (absorbed in so much abstraction that they) have no practical interests. </p>

<p>Answer is the 2nd one.</p>

<p>What I needed to know for this problem that I don't know and want help with:
-Is absorbed by incorrect? Or is it also idiomatically correct along with absorb in
-is this another idiom that I should have seen? or am I making this up: So.... that...</p>

<p>if absorb by is incorrect, then I can take out the first one. but why is the last one incorrect? wordiness? lack of conciseness?</p>

2

<p>Sorry page 494****</p>

3

<p>no you overlooked abstraction for the 3rd choice </p>

<p>and abstractions for 2nd choice</p>

<p>that subject verb agreeement is crucial to the 2nd answer being correct.</p>

4

<p>mathematicians are plural </p>

<p>they all are not abosrbed in abstraction</p>

<p>they are absorbed in abstractions</p>

<p>parallelism/subject verm agreeement here thats why…</p>

5

<p>there is no subject-verb disagreement. “they” is logically referring to the mathematicians. The fact that “abstractions” is plural does not validate the answer choice because they refers to the mathematicians, not the “abstractions.”</p>

6

<p>sat4lyfe, that’s not why the third choice is wrong. “abstraction” can function singularly there and be correct. </p>

<p>Here is the College Board’s explanation:</p>

<p>Choice (C) is correct. The subordinating conjunction “that” properly introduces a dependent adverb clause (“that they have no practical interests”) to complete the description begun by the adverb-adjective combination “so absorbed.”</p>

<p>[Explaining why the third choice is wrong:] Choice (D) involves improper emphasis. The placement of the adverb “so” before “much abstraction” rather than before “absorbed” results in a sentence that improperly emphasizes how abstract mathematics is rather than the degree to which mathematicians are absorbed in abstractions.</p>

<p>I don’t agree with the College Board on this one; it seems that both the second and third choices are logically sound. The extent of mathematical abstraction could lead to one’s misconception that mathematicians have no practical interests.</p>

7

<p>Actually, that explanation makes sense in words. As i read the two choices, i was thinking the same thing, just didn’t know how to articulate it. CB, in some instances, does a nice job with explanations; i think this was one of those instances.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly, choice (C) is better and more in-line with the intended meaning; but choice (D) seems far more logically justifiable than most wrong answers usually are.</p>

9

<p>Oh thanks! So “absorb by” is properly idiomatic? I now see why choice D is wrong, thanks silverturtle.</p>

<p>offtopic to the question, but still in the field of writing:
when I see “so…” should I always look for “that…”? </p>

<p>like: i did it so he could play vs. i did it so that he could play</p>

<p>is the first one considered wrong? or juts not as good as the second.</p>

10

<p>touche 10char</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>When “so” is used as part of a correlative conjunctive phrase, “that” is necessary, but we often drop it in colloquial contexts. The College Board doesn’t test this, though.</p>

<p>“so” can also be used as an intensifier, as in “I was so hungry.”</p>

12

<p>Ohh cool man. Thanks. Haha how do you know that CB doesn’t test it though?</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>The omission of “that” when linking adjective clauses to nouns is very common in both writing and speech; I’ve noticed that the College Board even does it occasionally. </p>

<p>I have never seen any Writing question that tests this.</p>

14

<p>Haha word. You’re beastly.</p>