<p>^that’s true. So now it’s a matter of correctly recalling the context from the sentence?</p>
<p>@ fresh101: If you can argue that “fatiguing” is not the opposite of “carefree”, saying that the opposite of “carefree” should actually be “caring” or “responsible”, then can’t the same be argued for “peaceful” and “burdensome”? The opposite of “peaceful” should be more like “violent” or “turbulent” than “burdensome”… at least, those are my $0.02.</p>
<p>As for the debate of the definition of ‘feckless’, it actually cited two different definitions of it, the first being the one you posted, and the second being the one I posted. That was a mistake on my part - I meant to copy both definitions, but it only pasted the second for some reason. So it totally depends on the context it’s being used in. </p>
<p>Also, I remember the sentence somewhat… it read, “The piece published by Englishwoman […] described the Native Americans’ lives as <em>blank</em>, contrary to most Europeans’ opinions that their lives were <em>blank</em>.”</p>
<p>^in the argument your making that “violent” should be the opposite of “calm and peaceful”, burdensome does fullfill that requriement. One definition of burdensome is oppressive, which can be considered “violent”. I don’t think that there’s a single source on the internet that will tell you that “carefree” is the opposite of fatiguing. Antonyms are meant to have a direct diametrical correlation. The two opposing words should directly be in contrast, not something you can subjectively interpret as something that is opposite.
You can also interpret antonyms based on positive/negative connotations of the pair of words. “tedious…feckless” would have negative…negative feeling. “halcyon…onerous” is positive…negative; hence, the latter would be more suited.</p>
<p>In the sentence you said, then tedious…feckless would be correct, i guess. But that’s implying that “halcyon…onerous” doesn’t work, and it does. I guess it’s the former that would be the better of the two choices.</p>
<p>I thought “oppressive” would give the sense of being weighed down or difficult to bear, and “violent” would be more explicit and direct - like chaos and attacking others. Hence the two would be different… but maybe that’s just me. </p>
<p>Also, “feckless” WOULD give off a very “negative” feeling if we went with your definition (incompetent or ineffectual), but if we went with mine (not assuming responsibility, carefree), the feeling would be less negative than the first… I’m not saying it’s necessarily positive, just less negative. </p>
<p>As for the historical context, I think we should refer back to Aqua3993’s post. He seemed pretty certain that the answer was “tedious… feckless”, so I’m really not sure.</p>
<p>In conclusion, I think we’re just back to square one, to Aqua3993’s assertion that neither “halcyon… onerous” nor “tedious… feckless” are clear cut antonyms. What will be the deciding factor here is most likely going to be historical context, and Aqua3993 seems to have pretty solid reasons. I’m currently enrolled in APUSH and I should know: the Native Americans were generally looked down upon by the Europeans, who dismissed Native American work and deemed it to be lesser than their own.</p>
<p>Then again, there’s still a chance that I’m mistaken and that “halcyon… onerous” is still correct, but at least I’ve gained a bit more confidence in my own answer.</p>
<p>In the spirit of rekindling debate on certain questions, I think there is something very important we all should consider about the infamous “bird migration explanation of/for” question. As far as I can recall, the sentence read something like…The scientists saw that birds migrated to some place every so often, and they couldnt provide an explanation of this phenomena. The explanation OF this phenomena IS that the birds migrate–this is given. the sentence is saying that scientists don’t know why this phenomena occurs–they seek to disover the underlying cause. Thus, explanation FOR an occurence is needed…explanation OF an occurence is not. And if anyone thinks I’m reading too much into this, A) this thought process happens in a split second when taking the test, B) out loud, explanation of made no sense, and C) if it were NE that would be the third NE (at least)–both the 2006 and 2008 tests only had 2 NE’s in the identifying error section.
Also, if anyone can confirm that in #34 it read something like “That the park comprises 200 trails blah blah came as a surprise to visitors” then “came” is most definitely the right answer since “comprises” sets a present tense…but then again, came sets a past tense that comprises may not follow…so maybe this question is NE after all. “That John drinks only water came as a surprise to Mary when I told her this.”==anything grammatically wrong with this sentence?</p>
<p>^ The answer to #34 is NE. It doesn’t matter if the first verb is in the present tense; it could still be grammatically correct. (I got this one wrong.) </p>
<p>What type of writing question was ‘explanation of/for’? Was it one where they had underlined words, telling you to choose the incorrect part of the sentence, or giving you possible things to change the sentence to and asking you to choose the best one out of all the ones they gave? In any case, from what I can recall, the question actually went like this: “The annual migration of several thousand birds to <insert place=”" name;=“” i=“” forgot=“”> intrigued scientists, who sought an explanation of the phenomenon." </insert></p>
<p>You could very well be right, but this of/for question has been so hotly debated that it’s making my head hurt, lol.</p>
<p>^lets just forget about it. Nothing we say can make a difference, except soothe our minds for the time being. And that’s not going to do much when we get back our actual reports, only to find out that we were wrong.</p>
<p>^ i like the way you think ;)</p>
<p>I don’t know what to say or believe abou the questions after so many have been disputed.</p>
<p>Do you guys have any predictions for the curve?</p>
<p>hi im new. so far for me at least 3 math mistakes. easy min/hour rate one, spinner one, and I,II,III condition one. 2 vocab misses im dumb i put avoid/appraise instead of avert/break up and exhort (dumbest choice ever lol) instead of emote. also put disdain instead of resentment (<< wee bit ambiguous). probably many other reading mistakes. writing i put “to build” but i’m wrong. Last one i put no error but seems to be disputed and i put “explanation of” as wrong. anyone remember passage about women artists renaissance that had 2 questions? the first q was hard something like what was result of renaissance???- i put something like led to more artists works being famous??? I’ll just be happy with a 200 after last year’s 191 since 213 needed in Ohio is out of reach for me.</p>
<p>^ Welcome.</p>
<p>silverturtle you’re really smart and ur posts are helpful. sorry but do u think no omit -5 crit read, -4 math, -3 writing would be over 200?</p>
<p>I’d say:</p>
<p>CR: 71</p>
<p>Math: 68</p>
<p>Writing: 71</p>
<p>Total: 210</p>
<p>That’s my best guess. However, here are the absolute lows and highs that it could be given historical data:</p>
<p>CR: 68-73</p>
<p>Math: 67-69</p>
<p>Writing: 68-73</p>
<p>Total: 203-215</p>
<p>So, given what you provided, the worst case scenario is that you break your goal by 3; the best case is that you make Semifinalist (and it’s possible with those scores, albeit unlikely).</p>
<p>thanks thats great info</p>
<p>I am still freaking out about the test and my score. </p>
<p>Anyone else have any theories about the debated questions or any projected curves?</p>
<p>I can only hope for a generous curve in order to get NMSF.</p>
<p>^I hate how different states have different cutoffs. Why is this?</p>
<p>I’m not sure, but I think it’s to decrease the amount of people who acquire NMSF. Different states have different average scores, and my understanding is that they want the top 3% in the country to be commended and the top 1% to be NSMF. Somebody else should be able to explain it better…</p>
<p>is right: carefree/ full of responsibilities, better than: tiresome/ lazy, tedious and feckless have completely negative connotations whereas halcyon and onerous have opposite charges and are antonyms in context, tedious/ feckless is the distractor, can anyone recall the sentence?</p>