SAT January 2012 - Critical Reading

<p>this is for anybody who is still not convinced that the “passing stranger” blogging question was “a good/accurate description of a blog reader”:
it’s not an intrusion. this is because the question asked “how would the author of passage 2 view the “passing stranger” described in lines _____ of passage 1?”
and those lines in passage 1 referred to "a passing stranger who is “INVITED INTO THE HOUSE.” someone who is invited into a house is not intruding. it’s more like someone who is called in without actively looking for something. therefore, this passing stranger is a typical blog reader because he/she doesn’t go out intending to get caught up in someone’s personal life, but end up doing so anyway. this is what the author of passage 2 experienced him/herself, so in his/her opinion, it is an “accurate description.”
yay</p>

<p>it was philosophy. philosophy was the only choice in which both parts of the answer made sense. even if “reservations” or something like that was accurate for passage 2, the other part of the answer that had reservations in it was not accurate. philosophy and going into detail/exploring the philosophy BOTH made sense, and made up the only answer choice that was accurate in its entirety. </p>

<p>boo. i debated to myself for a while over “qualifying a statement” versus “explaining an assertion.” i ended up choosing explaining an assertion, but I’m now sure it was qualifying a statement. why did i not go with my instinct???</p>

<p>i’m hoping for -2. i think that would be my best case scenario at the moment, and most likely still an 800. but we’ll see. oh well.</p>

<p>chances are we all did pretty well on the test, so we needn’t worry too much. the debates happening on this thread are, for me, mostly fun because i like proving myself right. hehe. at this point, i’m not gonna freak out about the actual score because i can’t change it. if you’re on this thread and reading the comments is only making you freak out more about how you did, there’s no reason for you to be here. go drink some tea and have some bread with butter and honey.</p>

<p>@evillavicencio</p>

<p>I think that the philosophy question should be dropped from discussion. There will not be a consensus reached on this question, especially considering all of these individual viewpoints. (and everyone attempting to undermine everyone else’s arguments)</p>

<p>Philosophy (mental process from photography)/Explain in detail
Methodology (how photography should be carried out)/Carried it out
Positive Medium (photography itself)/Reservations</p>

<p>There are arguments for and against each of these. I think the issue should be dropped until February 16th, when people can come back here and go “IN YOUR FACE!” but until then, good luck convincing others.</p>

<p>Erskine Caldwell, Margaret Bourke White, Jacob Riis</p>

<p>hmmm yeah you’re right
ok i’m out
have a nice sunday everybody!</p>

<p>@ jimmy quit putting positive medium down for a choice…there’s no point. It will never have a chance…</p>

<p>May as well allow me cling onto whatever hope I have left :<</p>

<p>BAH whatever. Time to do homework. I’ve been preoccupied with this silly test for the entire weekend. -after drawing the curtains- OH THE SUN! IT BURNS.</p>

<p>I also am still standing by the fact that the poet was “ambivalent” about her situation because:</p>

<p>Ambivalent:
Having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.</p>

<p>The poet was contented because she was sort of happy with her situation and did not care about her problems. But, she was mostly ambivalent as per this definition because the last sentence defined that the poet did not want to confront her landlord but knew it was inevitable. She was not contented:</p>

<p>contented:
Happy and at ease.
Expressing happiness and satisfaction.</p>

<p>because she said that the landlord was hounding her and forcing her to upgrade. I don’t think she was that contented personally.</p>

<p>Okay… hardest questions here.</p>

<p>[trading] or [shared farmland with neighbors]
[recycling expert] or [energy expert]
[inclusive…selective] or [forthright…relevant]
[accurate depiction of blog reader] or [inaccurate depiction of blog reader]</p>

<p>EDIT: What about the photography question that mentioned dissatisfaction?</p>

<p>Do we have thread for writing section?</p>

<p>@ jimmy I’m also signing off. Lol can we get some super hacker pro dude to get us all the answers? Where is anon when we need them?</p>

<p>@ Arobins…you must have missed all of those if you seriously thought they were hard?
The answers were recylcing expert, inclusive selective, accurate depiction and trading.</p>

<p>Teh [recycling expert] or [energy expert] will actually turn out to be “like a celebrity” and I will go IN YO FACE</p>

<p>Missed all four. COuld support all the answers too.</p>

<p>Esp. forthright…relevant
and the energy guy</p>

<p>@chacha: What?</p>

<p>yeah i have to agree there are much harder questions that needed to be debated such as ambivalent/contented, methodology/philosophy/positive medium amongst others</p>

<p>Chacha…the celebrity one was in no way even a thing.</p>

<p>If author 2 claimed that when he found a blog he liked, he followed it like crazy, how would he view the passing stranger as a good depiction?</p>

<p>author 2 claimed that blogs were intrusive so the passing stranger that comes into your house is a very accurate description</p>

<p>Reasoning:</p>

<p>BUT the second blog author said that when he finds a blog he likes, he follows it LIKE CRAZY. Thus, he would disagree that the analogy is correct, as a passing stranger passes or moves on from a person’s house. They don’t stay and pry.</p>

<p>I think we’re all too smart for the SAT.</p>

<p>Good morning guys~
You have no idea how much I’m enjoying these discussions, LOL. Even though I don’t think we’re getting anywhere on most of the questions it’s still pretty interesting.</p>

<p>Anyone having luck finding the blog articles?</p>