<p>Do you have the paragraph on-hand?</p>
<p>[Wired</a> 13.02: Nuclear Now!](<a href=“http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html]Wired”>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html)</p>
<p>The question addressed the tone of the 3rd paragraph.</p>
<p>I’d like to make a comment on why this question was difficult, and why there is so much disagreement about the answer. It’s because realizing that “vehement” was correct and “caustic” was not is not just about looking at the definitions of those words in a dictionary. It’s about being familiar with how they are actually used in English. You can only achieve this by reading a lot. So while it’s fine to prep for the SAT by studying vocab lists with definitions (and this may be the only way to effectively prep if the test is imminent) don’t fool yourself that this will really make you understand how words are actually used. Read.</p>
<p>The author, in the third paragraph, just lists a bunch of examples supporting why “the consequences aren’t pretty” (forest fires, hurricanes, melting polar ice sheets, flooded hamlets, fouled air, release of noxious pollutants, premature deaths, release of radioactive material, Chinese coal miner deaths/accidents, etc).</p>
<p>I’d say this is “vehement” and not “caustic.” The examples that the author brings up may be harsh, but the tone of the author himself is not. He’s simply hammering a point home by rapid-firing off examples, which is something we’d associate with a strong passion.</p>
<p>A caustic tone can also be vehement in the sense that both of those words can relate to harsh criticisms with fierce intensities, but the difference is that a caustic tone has the extra quality of being a bit nasty/snarky, typically associated with subtle insults. </p>
<p>It’s arguably a close call (sort of), but “vehement” is a more fitting answer, here.</p>
<p>EDIT: I’d agree with Hunt that this question is only difficult if you’re not familiar with how the words are typically used in context.</p>
<p>Alright, I can accept that.</p>
<p>I didn’t feel like it was passionate because he was using so many examples, and it was more of a logical criticism of coal, but I was probably too much in a sort of “logic is the opposite of passion” frame of mind from an earlier passage about Thoreau, since in this case they don’t necessarily exclude each other.</p>
<p>That I saw sarcasm in the author demonstrating the irony that coal is considered safer when it really isn’t was probably too much of an inference.</p>
<p>At any rate, you mentioned you were at -2. Whether or not you get an 800 or a 780 or even a 750, most colleges will bin those scores just the same because of the variance of predictive power at that high of a level. So all the more reason to go about your day whistling. :P</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE:</p>
<p>I had to delete quite a few bickering posts. If there are any more, I will have to close the thread and give infractions. Please remain civil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TMI as in Too Much Inference should be known as the Achilles’ heel of many students. The (correct) answers are almost always simple and direct.</p>
<p>Remember that the evidence that supports your answer HAS to be between the four corners of the document to be analyzed. Not in an outside text and not in your own mind.</p>
<p>You want to know how you can tell you’ve read enough to prepare yourself for these tests? It’s when you can almost always identify the right answer, but you really can’t explain why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is all very true. And, as far as reading, the reasons why studying lists of words is so wasteful is that sterile lists hardly offer any context. This is why I have always recommended to the time challenged to READ past exams with great attention (as opposed as studying the lists of words that were culled FROM those exams) until understanding how ETS develops its questions.</p>
<p>I wanted to elaborate a bit on xiggi’s point about inference.</p>
<p>When it comes to SAT questions, you almost have to take them at face value, and sometimes painfully so.</p>
<p>For instance, when the question asks you about analyzing the tone of paragraph 3, they really, really, really mean paragraph 3. I don’t have to look at any other paragraph to get the right answer (I answered “vehement,” which is the right answer, having not read anything other than paragraph 3 in that article notanengineer linked. I have no idea what the other paragraphs talk about).</p>
<p>Sometimes another answer might appear very attractive because you can twist it and justify it in your mind, but that should be a warning sign that the answer is probably wrong. The best answer always has <em>direct</em> evidence to support it. If you have to extrapolate, then it isn’t direct.</p>
<p>I think a key strength of good SAT test-takers is that they sometimes have to pick answers that they may be uncomfortable with, but are correct because of the evidence. There are plenty of questions where I might have thought answer A was more fitting overall based on context or outside knowledge/preconceptions, but answer C is what I’d have to force myself to bubble in because there was text to support it directly.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>/applaud</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This. As someone with a pair of (reading) 800’s, I didn’t even see the controversy associated with this question. While the strict denotation of caustic fit the passage reasonably well, the common usage of the word simply didn’t work.</p>
<p>I would go as far as to say that the strict definitions of the words <em>should</em> be enough. Even if all you were armed with were the definitions, I fail to see how “caustic” has any <em>direct</em> support.</p>
<p>I think “caustic” is only attractive because we can look at all the examples the author puts forth and think, “Wow, those sound really bad and intense. Hey, so does ‘caustic’ so I’ll choose that answer,” which unfortunately doesn’t really address the tone directly.</p>
<p>Anyways, we’re beating a dead horse at this point, but I think the important takeaway here, for prospective test-takers, is the sort of logic with which you should be assessing these questions.</p>
<p>It is still 50/50.</p>
<p>Caustic still has a definition of bitter and critical. Just because the first definition refers to a substance, doesn’t mean collegeboard can use it for the other definitions it has. In context, they are more likely referring to the caustic that means bitter and critical. Vehement means extremely angry with rancor, and hostility. This is an extreme, and if you read the passage, he was not extremely angry or hostile at all. In fact, he was criticizing aspects of the subject, and he was bitter at that too.</p>
<p>I understand that you may pick vehement, but you are only supporting that because you are biased to that answer after you chose it.</p>
<p>and @Hunt</p>
<p>honestly you don’t need to read a lot to score well on the SAT reading. i read like one book a year and can get a 680 because I did over 15 practice tests. Just know how to READ SAT PASSAGES, and don’t waste time reading novels.</p>
<p>No, “vehement” is the right answer for reasons already stated in this thread. The author’s tone was not bitter/witty or sarcastic. Vehemence doesn’t imply anger and hostility – it just implies something firm, forceful, emotional, and passionate. You can deny something vehemently, or show vehement support for something, or engage in a vehement debate, and so forth. It carries a connotation of “Damn, this person is serious and cares about their position!”</p>
<p>If you have a caustic tone, you’re coming across as a sarcastic d-bag, generally. Think House from the show of the same name – the way he criticizes people with witty sarcasm is a pretty clear example of caustic tone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t. A person that vehemently argues a position argues it with vigor, strength, and conviction. Your definition for vehement better defines caustic if anything.</p>
<p>Then again, you only got a 680 on CR after 15 practice tests, so I’m not too surprised you botched the definition of a Level 4 or 5 word.</p>
<p>P.S. That remark was probably more caustic than the tone of the paragraph in question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>■■■■■ … :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>zealous; ardent; impassioned: a vehement defense; vehement enthusiasm. 2. characterized by rancor or anger; violent: vehement hostility. 3. strongly emotiona</p>
<p>directly from dictionary.com, nice try though.</p>
<p>And I’m guessing 680 but it could still be 700+.</p>
<p>And for someone who reads a book a year, that score is amazing because I at least have time to make many friends unlike a certain ‘someone’, and use the time wisely to do other productive stuff such as Lax, Bball, social events, you get where I’m going.</p>
<p>And honestly, who CARES about SAT once I’m in the most amazing party school, which is still in the top 50 and ranked a public Ivy. Even if I dont get 700 reading I might still take it again, but hoping for the 700 to get it done with. And those 15 practice tests were over a course of only 3 weeks.</p>
<p>P.S. Oh wait, I thought you were a genius at CR but your at USC, nevermind that.</p>