<p>@APkidd: yes.</p>
<p>can someone explain the self-conscious CR answer? I thought it was b/c he wasn’t a good student.</p>
<p>@Diatomiclove,</p>
<p>It was “vulgar masses”…he uses quotation marks for the purpose of showing that the critic called them “vulgar masses”, but he disagrees with it. Kinda like how some people use air quotes around a word…</p>
<p>no it definitely didn’t need to be “had shrunk”. the tense is ambiguous even though it shrank in the past. no error.</p>
<p>@Kamzarro: What was the question? Was it a vocab or passage one? If it was a passage, which one was it?</p>
<p>in hunting was correct. the verb that was underlined after “organs” at the end of the line was the one that was incorrect. organs is plural but the verb was singular.</p>
<p>and im pretty sure the vulgar one was quoting one of the earlier, what was it, highbrowed critics?</p>
<p>it was a vocab one…</p>
<p>@cantconcentrate no idea, that’s why i was asking haha. someone else brought it up, i vaguely remember considering mundane but i don’t think i picked it.</p>
<p>Oh… I have no idea then. I don’t recall answering mundane to any vocab question, though.</p>
<p>“in hunting”.</p>
<p>correct answer to the sentence completion with mundane (it was about the scientific research) is deplorable.</p>
<p>^That sounds a bit better.</p>
<p>I remember mundane as a choice, but it was wrong.</p>
<p>@Bioboy12–but if he’s using quotations to show that the critics called them that, like you said, wouldn’t the other choice also be correct too? The choice that said he used the quotations to show that he was quoting someone?</p>
<p>all i remember for the mundane question was that none of the other answers made sense in the sentence, and although mundane was a weak answer, it was better than all the other ones…</p>
<p>anyone remember the pedestrian one? like what the question was- because i dont recall choosing an answer choice with that word, or that choice at all really…</p>
<p>But how is it readymades can become appealing? I thought it would go something like this: “Readymade theory, how paintings are all readymade, critics response to theory, Duncans flaw in his reasoning.”</p>
<p>He didn’t need to talk about HOW readymades could become appealing. The first paragraph was the response to his EXHIBIT, not his THEORY about readymades. Isn’t there a difference there?</p>
<p>oh wait nvm…bombastic made sense</p>
<p>@Diatomiclove: Yeah, but don’t forget that ETS asks for the “best” answer.</p>
<p>I’m at: </p>
<p>M: -3 (All three were incredibly stupid mistakes), omit 1 (ran out of time)
CR: -1
W: -2 (possibly -1)</p>
<p>How’s my score looking? I’m a sophomore.</p>
<p>did anyone get insidious as an answer?</p>