ambitiouskid

Oh wow, I never knew that. Thanks!

silverturtle

Updating this:

Here is the 2011 practice test as well as the answers and explanations:

https://satonlinecourse.collegeboard...etestaction.do

Supposedly, it is the October 2005 SAT. But if you don't have that QAS (and I suspect that very few of you do), you now have an additional official practice test.

SATnoob

Is there a PDF of your guide silverturtle? Long time no talk...

silverturtle

^ Silverturtle's Guide to SAT and Admissions Success.pdf

The formatting didn't translate perfectly, but it's alright.

SATnoob

Thank you silverturtle, just to let you know, i been reviewing one test PER WEEK. I will be doing this until the SAT date arrives. It's actually pretty fun.

antonioray

That is not analogous with the swallow sentence. The boy may be aware that the box contains cards, but the sentence does not have any signs suggesting that the boy knows that the cards inside are, say, green, or that there are 100 of them. To know that, he would search for his parents' explanations that describe the cards to the boy.

You said that scientists do not search for others' acts of description (as in other scientists', or those of similar professionals). That may be true, but a textbook that provides description is making an impersonal act of describing, and, in turn, explaining.

An interpretation that was not given or deductively proved would still be an assumption because it might not the only possible one. Your proof of its being the correct one was

There are 3 possibilities, A, B, and C.
1. I interpret A
2. Not B because it is inconsistent with A
3. Not C because it is inconsistent with A
4. With B and C eliminated, A is the only possibility.

Again, that would be begging the question.

silverturtle

Well then you thereby concede the point. The phenomenon is the the arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring and would be described as such. If you agree that the construction "[subject] was fascinated by [object]" suggests that the subject is aware of the object, then you must likewise agree that the scientists are aware of the object in this case, which happens to be a description of the phenomenon.

If you agree that scientists do not search for the act of explaining, 1b is eliminated as a possibility. Indeed, in general scientists could look for something that performs the act of description, but the illogicality of that in this case is illustrated with the elimination of 1a as a viable option.

Yes, it would be if anyone were to do that.

antonioray

Arrival of swallows is the phenomenon, not a description of it. An example of description would be the swallows' pattern of behavior as they arrive.

No I don't agree. I said that scientists will not be searching for other scientists to do the searching, but that does not mean that scientists never look for acts of explaining.

You mean the (unproven) illogicality (beyond that it is merely inconsistent with an assumed interpretation) results in the elimination of 1a.

How else would you describe your elimination of 1a. and 1b. other than that they are merely inconsistent with your interpretation (which is subject to fault) of the sentence?

silverturtle

The phenomenon is a concept; "arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring" is a description of it (i.e., a verbal representation).

No, that would not be a description of the phenomenon. The sentence does not suggest that there is anything phenomenal about the pattern of behavior as they arrive.

Then please offer a story in which the scientists would look for acts of explaining and that is consistent with the sentence offered.

I demonstrated that 1a and 1b are rendered illogical by context.

antonioray

Perhaps, but that does not make it the only description that can be made regarding the phenomenon.
That would be a description of the swallows' arrival. The sentence does not suggest it, which is why the sentence could mean that the scientists were searching for description of the swallows' arrival.
If I interpret the sentence to mean that the scientists were searching for description of the swallows' arrival, I could say that they were observing the swallows for descriptors or were about to consult a text describing the swallows' arrival. I can't offer a story consistent with your interpretation (one I agree with but might not be the only possible one) in which scientists would be looking for acts of explaining.

Isn't the context what you had to prove in order to show that they were searching for justification? You assigned the context a truth value and made it the only possible one. Eliminating 1a and 1b via that method does not prove that 1a and 1b are inherently illogical, but only that they are inconsistent with your interpretation.

silverturtle

Yes, but not of the phenomenon.

Again, the swallows' mere arrival is not the phenomenon.

I said consistent with the sentence, not necessarily consistent with my interpretation.

Prove context? What does that mean? The context is given. That's like saying that you have to prove the text for the Critical Reading passages in order to support your answer.

antonioray

What is the phenomenon then?

"they were observing the swallows for descriptors or were about to consult a text describing the swallows' arrival." would be consistent with the sentence.

No the actual words are there, but the meaning is up to the reader to interpret. As you may be aware of, just about every text, every sentence has more than one possible interpretation.

One possible interpretation supports "explanation for," but not every possible interpretation does the same.

nothingto

Silverturtle, it would have been very easy for us, if you linked us to the post's in the Table of Contents. It is very hard to go down, because your guide is huge

silverturtle

As I have repeatedly stated, the sentence suggests that the arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring is the phenomenon.

No, for the same reason that I provided in post #914.

No, the context here is words.

Yes, but sometimes only one interpretation is contextually supported, as is the case with this question.

silverturtle

Yes, I wanted to do this but I could not, because I did not have the addresses to link to when I was writing the Table of Contents.