<p>thanks fresh101.
Maybe, since it seems like this may have been a harder test, the cutoff will be lower?!</p>
<p>^im prayin so</p>
<p>then again, i heard that the class of 2011 - 2013 probably faces the most competition with each other because there’s going to be the highest amount of people applying to colleges… </p>
<p>potentially smarter people taking the SATs too? becuase of all these prep books now…i mean very few probably used those 5 years ago. </p>
<p>so PSATs may just be like before…same curves and everything only now the cutoff scores will be higher… D=.</p>
<p>What better way to check the L’Enfant question than to see whether the sentence has been used in formal documents about the Capitol…though not exact, this website says “in the center of the city” in the paragraph that starts with “Jefferson’s” (para 5). This site is a national registe of historic places, it better use perfect grammar lol.</p>
<p>Woops forgot to post the link to the site…[The</a> Federal Presence](<a href=“http://www.nps.gov/history/Nr/travel/wash/fedpres.htm]The”>http://www.nps.gov/history/Nr/travel/wash/fedpres.htm)</p>
<p>^thank you. So i was right!!</p>
<p>did it say “in” in the original question?</p>
<p>no it said at</p>
<p>What he posted isn’t evidence that “at” is wrong.</p>
<p>^ I also found on another site that one uses “in” when referring to cities. Alas, this is one question where everyone will fight for the answer he or she put to the death (by nature of the debatability of the sentence structure), so we should all probabaly try to forget about it.</p>
<p>I did not find this thread until today…</p>
<p>I thought I did okay on PSAT, maybe except for the writing section. The thing I hate about grammar tests is that there is no one hardcoded set of rules for English grammar. Different people condone different grammatical “errors.” There are several supposedly grammatically correct sentences in PSAT that some books or English teachers will reject and vice versa. The answers I believe to be correct are somewhat different from the group concensus here, but I will not share my answers here for a good reason.</p>
<p>I agree with most of the critical reading section answers here, except for one answer: halcyon/onerous. Why are there so many posters here who are simply following whoever first said “halcyon/onerous” without doing some extensive research of their own? Yes, I strongly believe the answer should be tedious/feckless. People should stop looking at the first definition in the dictionary and claim to know the word. English language has many nuances here and there that should not be ignored.</p>
<p>1) Many people are claiming that halcyon/onerous are definitely antonyms, while tedious/feckless are not. That is not so true. Both pairs are not clear cut antonyms. In context, both are feasible answers.</p>
<p>Halcyon here would best defined as carefree, but most of the time, halcyon is used as peaceful, which is not really a direct opposite of onerous (burdensome, as in some burdensome duty or work).</p>
<p>Tedious often means boring, but at the same time, it means long and tiresome (as in tedious duty or work). Feckless may mean ineffective, incompetent, or futile, but it can also mean lazy. These two words are definitely not direct antonyms, but put into context, they make much sense: Indians were thought to be lazy (not doing any work), but an English woman found out that their lives are actually very tiresome (full of work/chores).</p>
<p>2) My choice actually makes sense historically as well. The 17th century Europeans viewed Indians (and several other native tribes in the world) as inferior lazy (feckless) bums who did not do work that Europeans would accept as “work.” Indians spent longer time hunting and fishing, not doing paperwork or farming. However, once they learned more about the details of the so-called savages’ lifestyles, the Europeans realized that the natives’ lives were filled with tedious chores and tasks that kept than always busy.</p>
<p>Aqua may be right. </p>
<p>I’ll compare the most pertinent definitions:</p>
<p>Halcyon: “carefree”</p>
<p>Onerous: “having or involving obligations or responsibilities”</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>Tedious: “marked by tedium; long and tiresome”</p>
<p>Feckless: “having no sense of responsibility; lazy”</p>
<p>It seems that the correct selection depends on a historical rather than sentential context; does it not?</p>
<p>@ Aqua3993: That actually sounds pretty reasonable. I do hope you’re right, because I marked “tedious… feckless” on my answer sheet before coming to this thread. Then, almost instantly, I had people jumping all over me, telling me I had made a mistake.</p>
<p>It seems that the correct selection depends on a historical rather than sentential context; does it not? </p>
<p>Let us remember, however, that the PSAT’s do not test any knowledge of historical context. The answer is supposed to be straightforward. Aqua is overthinking the solution.</p>
<p>you know what…aqua is right…tedious/feckless makes much more sense. i must admit i havent been looking stuff up for this question since i went crazy and put rustic/unaffected which is definitely wrong. aqua you seem very intelligent, i would love to know what you put for the explanation of/for question and the washington dc at the center question.</p>
<p>Halcyon: “carefree”</p>
<p>Onerous: “having or involving obligations or responsibilities”</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>Tedious: “marked by tedium; long and tiresome”</p>
<p>Feckless: “having no sense of responsibility; lazy”</p>
<p>Using Silverturtle’s definitions, tedious and feckless are not antonyms, which is what the answer has to be</p>
<p>^ I did some research myself. For ‘halcyon’, I got this: </p>
<p>“idyllically calm and peaceful; suggesting happy tranquillity; “a halcyon atmosphere””</p>
<p>Now for ‘onerous’:</p>
<p>“burdensome: not easily borne; wearing; “the burdensome task of preparing the income tax return”” </p>
<p>Then for ‘tedious’ it cites this:</p>
<p>“dull, monotonous, fatiguing”</p>
<p>For ‘feckless’, this:</p>
<p>“without purpose; carefree”</p>
<p>I think the latter two definitions stick out to me more as a pair of antonyms than the first two.</p>
<p>I think the question was referring to the Native American people, rather than their work. I might be wrong tho. If I’m right, it means that the answer would be halcyon.</p>
<p>@fledgling—how is “fatiguing”, or tiring, the opposite of “carefree”?. It makes no sense. The opposite of “carefree” would be “caring”, or responsible. Something that is tiring has no relation with “carefree”. </p>
<p>On the other hand, “halcyon” is “calm and peaceful”, which makes to sense to say that it’s oppostie to “burdensome”, or onerous. Something that is burdensome, or oppressive, is the opposite of something that is “calm” or peacefull.</p>
<p>@fledgling: The definition you posted for feckless is not supported by Merriam-webster’s dictionary:
Main Entry: feck·less
Pronunciation: ˈfek-ləs
Function: adjective
Etymology: Scots, from feck effect, majority, from Middle English (Scots) fek, alteration of Middle English effect
Date: circa 1585
1 : weak, ineffective
2 : worthless, irresponsible</p>
<p>Therefore, the opposite to feckless would be words like strong, effective, worthy, and responsible. The word “tedious” has no correlation with any one of those words.</p>
<p>I could see “tedious” and “feckless” working if the people were described as feckless and their lives as tedious.</p>