<p>I know it works, but HOW and WHY? For a while I kept missing a number of questions, and then gradually I began to get better. In other cases, people who read a lot with analytical perspective have gotten 800 CR with no SAT Prep. WHat is it about the practice tests that leads to improvement? I have always wanted to know. And the "patterns", I did lots of practice but noticed no patterns.....well just a couple- such as those when questions ask for the purpose of an author using certain words or phrases, the question is asking you to probe the purpose of the rhetoric as opposed to the purpose of the article. Someone elucidate, I am heavily confused. My reasoning leads me to equate taking sat practice tests to intense analytical reading, so that in essence a practice test is a focused, analytical reading of the type necessary to succeed on the SAT or reach its subtle to find but definite in verbality threshold. Someone elucidate- i might have answered my own question to a degree or perhaps not but nevertheless I am unsure of my convictions as derived from deductive reasoning in my argument concerning the equating of sat reading passages to intense analytical reading. Someone please elucidate WHY:</p>
<p>WHY do lots of practice tests for critical reading improvement work?</p>
<p>The arguments made in the above passage may lead some to question my sanity, but that is irrelavant for now. And not to worry, for if I am satisfied by a response to my question that is salutary and complete in its reasoning, I shall be perfectly sane. The SAT is a puzzle, a game to get oneself into...and all the stress and confusion about it only serve to muddle one's analytical reasoning with regards to attempting to determine what characteristics of the test constitute an evaluation of reading comprehension improvability. I want to improve my reading-- and I read a lot...I love to read...but this test really intrigues and puzzles me...perhaps it is because the stuff I read is not specifically tested...</p>
<p>Now before I proceed to delve into the intricacies of the nuanced nature of evaluatory questions on the SAT, it is necessary to make a general and highly comprehensive assertion. The SAT critical reading in essence evaluates the mind of an individual based on the numbers, types, and relative difficulty levels of reasoning patterns encountered, exercised, or analyzed by that individual. A test which asks the taker to probe the purpose of rhetorical aspects of a passage (such as the function of selection of diction) demands exposure to such reasoning patterns which constitute the manipulation and implementation of similar rhetorical devices or phrases with regards to the passage. Of course all rhetoric seemingly in excellent writing serves a purpose in the passage, but one must learn to recognize the purpose of the rhetoric alone with regards to its function in a part of the passage, rather than muddling it with more general ideas or other ideas in the passage. The ability to acheive recognition of pronounced differentiation of assertions in argumentation is thus a highly imperative skill on a standardized test such as the SAT.</p>
<p>Okay really WHY do lots of practice tests for critical reading improvement work??
<back to="" the="" real="" world="">
I think I have a writing disease because I just can't stop writing this analysis:
<at this="" time="" i="" return="" to="" my="" abstract="" plane=""></at></back></p>
<p>The philosophical as well as analytical basis for the evaluatory techniques used on the SAT critical reading is grounded in REASON and REASON only! By such REASON I must be led to deduce that the test measures different patterns of reasoning. As for ascertaining these patterns of reasoning and using a comparative analysis to determine patterns in the questioning in addition to logical probing implemented by the SAT, I have much more difficulty.</p>
<p>Overblown thesaurus posts aside, they work because you get a feel for what kind of questions are asked, and what to look for when reading the passages.</p>
<p>Ah yes it is interesting to observe that the SAT confines itself to some patterns of reasoning, making exposure and familiarity with such patterns feasible over a relatively short period of time. It is also interesting to note that a passion for voracious reading seems to enhance this exposure, by compelling through desire an individual to expose his/herself to yet more patterns of reasoning, strengthening the patterns already inculcated in his/her mind.</p>
<p>I love enhancing my reasoning, but it is not my sole purpose in life. You know what, it's party time!!!
<hyper2400 ends="" analytical="" binging="" at="" this="" time="">
My sanity has now been restored :)
But in the meantime I would love it if more people answer why doing a lot of practice helps improve reading scores on sat...</hyper2400></p>
<p>Relapse into analytical binging insanity....</p>
<p>I must acknowledge that I am niether brilliant nor highly intelligent. I am just very analytical and philosophical. I take a zealous interest in the notions and fancies concerning the intricacies of the SAT critical reading. I wish to score higher in CR in order to meet a goal set by myself- to discover reasoning patterns...now I AM NOT OBSESSED WITH THE SAT...but I AM OBSESSED with ANALYTICAL THINKING any text, material, or abstract substance CONCERNING the manipulation, exploitation, evaluation, and extrapolation of any of the various intricacies of human reason, as put to the test in "testing" situations.</p>
<p>Um... you seem to be making valid points but you don't communicate them very well. While sophisticated vocabulary can enhance the prose, your posts are riddled with superfluous words that only detract from your credibility as a writer. Want to learn a good word? Try malapropism.</p>
<p>No hard feelings, but I believe an explanation and analysis on my part is necessary...</p>
<p>That which is superfluous is not necessarily a malapropism. But what you say regarding credibility is true in general, but in the above posts I try to refine my points so that I can highlight that which I feel is most important with regards to my position on reason. If I do detract from my own credibility, well then additional practice may improve me...ah well only time will tell...for I am certainly not brilliant...I just wish to probe the intricacies of human reason as it relates to this test.</p>
<p>But I do anticipate objections. But so long as those objections are in some manner reasonable, I reflect on them happily. Cfunkexonian, I will reflect on your point. But linking my post to malapropism and implementing the rhetorical device of the question "Want to learn a good word?", as to refer to my miscontrued obsession with using enormous vocabulary is not a humble response by any means. Your response is valid, but your choice of rhetorical device (the pillory you emphasize in your question and response) is not so humble. But it is nonetheless excellent advice for one who does not choose his words carefully. :)</p>
<p>I will implement my own device of pillory: Want to define a new way of classifying the motive which informs your choice of rhetorical device (rhetorical question in your case)? Try HUMAN NATURE (here used as a euphemism for arrogance). I am, however, not accusing you of being arrogant. You use the rhetorical device for reasons stemming from a possible rejection or resent of my selection of diction as well as word choice. I DO NOT BLAME YOU AT ALL...for it is human nature to resent that which is too dense and complex to be considered humble. Perhaps you see me as arrogant. I would like to inform you that my purpose is not motivated by a sentiment of vernacular superiority, but that my purpose is simply to probe the analytical nature of reasoning used on the SAT.</p>
<p>I have harsh feelings towards NONE. I am simply analyzing your post and incorporating it into a larger analysis.</p>
<p>Hyper2400, I was the one who did send you the PM.</p>
<p>If you write this in a college essay, you're not going to get anywhere. You're randomly using advanced vocabulary every other word for no reason. </p>
<p>This reminds me of how a third grader is yelled at when they purposely use advanced words to appear smart.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but being verbose isn't going to motivate anyone to read and evaluate your reasoning.</p>
<p>my choice of words is careful and refined not like a third grader...your analogies are false.</p>
<p>I put a lot of time and dedication into writing my analysis and I really do not appreciate your rude ad-hominem responses. Attack the arguments, not the person.</p>
<p>I just like to analyze things, and my own post is the place to do it. If this is too verbose (which I can understand) or idiotic for some people to handle, I apologize in advance.</p>
<p>I am a philosopher. This is how I analyze things. I may not be brilliant or genius, but I still analyze because doing so is my passion. This is not the only thing in life I do. But it is nevertheless satisfying.</p>