<p>Thanks, that probably would have bothered me for a while. Eh, my state’s cutoff is considerably lower (202 or 203 I think). Right now I think I’m sitting at -2 M, -4 CR, -4 W. I hope the writing curve is decent…I haven’t even seen many cc people say that they think they got an 80 writing on form W.</p>
<p>“Does anyone know if “structure to explore” was Choice A?”</p>
<p>It was.</p>
<p>^Thanks! That’s a huge relief…</p>
<p>Does anyone else know what would be wrong (if anything) about the sentence:
That Mary drinks came as a surprise to George.
(Similar to that question on the PSAT that starts with ‘that’)</p>
<p>I’ve heard that ‘that’ should be replaced with “the fact that”, the verb tense “came” is wrong, among other things…</p>
<p>^ was that the same question with the “comprises” roads, whatever whatever one? </p>
<p>so it was like</p>
<p>that the park was one of the largest in the world…and comprises roads blah blah …</p>
<p>if it wasn’t…</p>
<p>the question with the “comprises” in it, was “comprises” the answer? (meaning comprises was grammatically incorrect?"</p>
<p>while you can use “comprises”, i remember it had the stuff that the park was comprised of, the roads and everything – after the word “comprises”. </p>
<p>so if the sentence was to use “comprises”, wouldn’t it have to be like – roads, trees and lakes comprise the park. </p>
<p>or the park comprises of roads, trees, and lakes? (i don’t think it was those 3…) </p>
<p>or does it not matter?</p>
<p>I think I destroyed CR… I did fairly well on writing. My best section on every prac test I have every taken is math. I usually get 720 or so on math, and like 670 in CR and like 550 in writing. Plus I am brown… so that pretty much automatically makes me good at math and bad at writing. I don’t say I am being stereotypical… its not stereotypical if it’s true for everyone ;). But I think on this PSAT I did better on writing and reading than I did on math lol. I didn’t think I did too bad on math anyway. I think I miseed 2 and omitted 3 in both sections combied. Im in Indiana so the cut off isn’t too high 
If not NMF than atleast commended</p>
<p>would you say that after all these writing questions that the curve should be more generous than other administrations of the PSAT? </p>
<p>Let’s all hope for a good writing curve!!</p>
<p>“explanation of” can be used when a noun follows it. While both versions “explanation of” and “explanation for” are correct, i dont think that CB would mark it wrong; i have never seen a problem like that if it did mark it wrong because then they would be picky (some1 made this argument before)–at least not BB2. (and trust me, i reviewed that book completely the day before the PSAT).</p>
<p>an explanation of a poem. </p>
<p>to find an explanation for a mystery. </p>
<p>Both sentences above illustrate the correct usage of both the “of” and “for” prepostiion.
[Explanation</a> Definition | Definition of Explanation at Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explanation]Explanation”>EXPLANATION Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)</p>
<p>So, if one is used over the other, it is quite acceptable. And eh, i guess i was wrong about this statement ““explanation of” can be used when a noun follows it”. “explanation for” can be used as well. In any case, why would you want to change something that is already grammatically correct?</p>
<p>Does anyone remember what number the explanation of/for question was? or at least if it was on the left page or right page of finding the error section? I dont recall having trouble with this one and seeing the debate about it, it seems like i should have. i am pretty sure i did not put NE since i only had two NE’s (the unseasonably mild winter weather one and #34).
Assuming the context people have given is correct, the scientists could not provide an explanation “of” the phenomena of birds migrating. Intuitively, “explanation of” just doesn’t sound right when you say it out loud…and since it definitely wasnt one of the last “identifying the error questions” the earlier questions are not necessarily based on how good it sounds, however, the correct wrong answer IS usually the one that just sounds wrong. Therefore, the ETS made this question to make the “explanation of” stand out to the average test taker, and not for the advanced ones to overanalyze (that was what 33 and 34 were for). Now, grammatically, “explanation OF a poem” implies that the poem is a known and observed entity–the explanation is an interpretation and analysis to improve ones understanding. Thus "explanation OF a phenomena doesnt make sense since the phenomena is not a known entity…in fact thats the point–scientists cant explain it, due to lack of knowledge of its causes and essentials. You cant have an explanation OF something you dont know about…you seek to find an explanation FOR it.
Additionally, I have looked at the answer key to last years test (when i took it) and the 2006 test (my brother’s test) and in both cases there have only been 2 NE’s for that section. It has been established that #23 and #24 are NE’s, thus this would be a rare third one.</p>
<p>Even though I admit “came” will probably turn out to be the answer to #34, can someone please point out the grammatical flaw in this hypothetical sentence (b/c i see none): “That Mary drinks water came as a surprise to John when I told him this.”</p>
<p>Okay - this is killing me. The unmarked numberline had 3 properties. Which 3 did you put down? I put down all 3, but I hear some people think it’s 2 + 3.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember what number the explanation of/for question was? or at least if it was on the left page or right page of finding the error section? I dont recall having trouble with this one and seeing the debate about it, it seems like i should have. i am pretty sure i did not put NE since i only had two NE’s (the unseasonably mild winter weather one and #34).
Assuming the context people have given is correct, the scientists could not provide an explanation “of” the phenomena of birds migrating. Intuitively, “explanation of” just doesn’t sound right when you say it out loud…and since it definitely wasnt one of the last “identifying the error questions” the earlier questions are not necessarily based on how good it sounds, however, the correct wrong answer IS usually the one that just sounds wrong. Therefore, the ETS made this question to make the “explanation of” stand out to the average test taker, and not for the advanced ones to overanalyze (that was what 33 and 34 were for). Now, grammatically, “explanation OF a poem” implies that the poem is a known and observed entity–the explanation is an interpretation and analysis to improve ones understanding. Thus "explanation OF a phenomena doesnt make sense since the phenomena is not a known entity…in fact thats the point–scientists cant explain it, due to lack of knowledge of its causes and essentials. You cant have an explanation OF something you dont know about…you seek to find an explanation FOR it.
Additionally, I have looked at the answer key to last years test (when i took it) and the 2006 test (my brother’s test) and in both cases there have only been 2 NE’s for that section. It has been established that #23 and #24 are NE’s, thus this would be a rare third one.</p>
<p>You’re way reading into this wayyyy too much—i mean it’s a idiomatic type of question. If CB’s tests have taught us anything, it’s that past performances are not good predictions of its future tests. Nothing in this phrase, “explanation OF a poem” implies anything about its familiarity with the poem. All we know is that it’s a poem–period. It makes sense to say that we can provide an “explanation of” something and “explanation for” something. That “something” can be anything—it’s not restricted to a “known entity” or a unknown entity. What was questoin #24?</p>
<p>To back up my argument even further, here is the definition dictionary.com gave for the first example sentence i posted.
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: AN EXPLANATION OF A POEM</p>
<p>If dictionary.com said that explanation was a “statement made to clarify something and make it understandable” and used “AN EXPLANATION OF A POEM” as its example, it’s implying that it didn’t know about the poem, and thus it’s trying to clarify it by using “explanation of” as the correct idiom.</p>
<p>you seek to find an explanation FOR it.</p>
<p>While this may be true, nothing in the context (im sure) said that scientists were SEEKING to find an explanation FOR it. If they did, then “for” is correct. The operative word is in fact seeking, because that word necessitates the use of “for” but only if the word “seeking” was in the sentence.</p>
<p>I really do hope these convoluted and ambiguous questions mean that the curve for the writing section is more lenient this year.</p>
<p>Here’s what I got for the three most disputed questions:</p>
<p>Explanation for/explanation of? I did say that the error was explanation for. My reasoning was that since the question was near the beginning of the section, most people must have picked that as the answer to get it correct since it just sounds wrong to the ear and most test takers in America just go by that, which would make it an “easy” question.</p>
<p>The “suggested to build” and “at the center” question near the end. I put “at the center” since suggested to build is actually parallel with another part of the sentence and even though “suggested building” seems to be more idiomatic, you can suggest any noun and “to build” functions as a noun… I think?</p>
<p>The last question which sounded like this: “That the trail comprises … came as a surprise to the visitors from the city”
I put No error since the “came” should be OK, right? I mean, technically, the visitors can be in the past since there is no indication in the sentence of the time period (past, present, future).</p>
<p>Somebody please tell me that the curve will be more lenient this year…</p>
<p>I guess you guys win about the “explanation of” question. I mean i wasn’t born here so i wouldn’t know squat about the American way of saying particular idioms. IDK. We’ll have to see in December. For now, im gona forget about this thread.</p>
<p>“For now, im gona forget about this thread.”</p>
<p>That’s probably a good idea.</p>
<p>^that’s the same mentality I had two days ago. and the day before that… and the day before that.</p>
<p>what would -6 CR, -1 M, -3 W be for my total score. I think it would be about 216. Is that national merit in ohio?</p>
<p>Recap of all the questions I answered wrong: </p>
<p>CR: </p>
<ol>
<li>The one whose correct answer was “halcyon… onerous”. </li>
<li>Saying Passage 1’s author was “defensive” as opposed to “somber… wry” (the right answer - what in the world was I thinking here?!).</li>
</ol>
<p>Math:</p>
<ol>
<li>The one dealing with averages and degrees in a circle, whose correct answer was 60. I put 90.</li>
</ol>
<p>Writing:</p>
<ol>
<li>The trails question. (“That the… comprised more than 200 trails… came a surprise to many visitors”) I marked ‘That’ (A) as wrong, although I think the correct answer should be NE.</li>
<li>“suggested to build”, marking “to build” as wrong. </li>
<li>I’m not sure of this one, but it’s the “explanation of” vs. “explanation for” problem that’s still being hotly debated on these forums. Now that my memory’s starting to come back somewhat, I think I actually put NE… (lol what??)</li>
</ol>