I'll take your hardest SAT questions

[antonioray]

<p>oh asking for advice exclusively from writing experts huh? I better sit this one out.</p>

<p>Paragraph corrections, in my experience, come in two different flavors. One is just like improving sentences, although transitions should be taken into account. For example, “meanwhile” for “now I’m going to tackle a related aspect of the essay topic,” “on the contrary” for “on the contrary” (ok that didn’t really help but I don’t think you need help on that one), and the usual suspects like “thus,” “therefore,” and silverturtle’s favorite, “indeed.”</p>

<p>The other flavor is whether a particular sentence or groups of sentences help in developing the thesis. Relevance is key: dinosaurs don’t have much to do with Memphis rock concerts. I find the best way to deal with paragraph corrections is to master the essay component, because mastery of the SAT essay helps instill many integral components of essays into your head, of which relevance and coherence are examples of.</p>

<p>If the 1-3 errors fall outside of paragraph corrections, just keep practicing grammar rules. Or keep asking the writing experts.</p>

[ViggyRam]

<p>LOL, aight.</p>

<p>An expedition was sent in 1949 to check THE REPORT OF A TURKISH VILLAGER THAT he had seen the remains of Noah’s ark on Mount Ararat. </p>

<p>^That just sounds weird. I understand why ‘the report’ needs to immediately follow ‘to check’ but the ending sounds way too odd (that he had seen…etc.). Why is this grammatically correct? It sounds just so blatantly wrong.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>Never pick an error in a choice in which there is no error just because the choice sounds weird. Lots of phrasings will sound weird to you; you’ve never read the work of Roy Bkashar(still can’t spell his name), have you?</p>

<p>If the choice doesn’t violate a grammar principle you know, don’t choose it.</p>

<p>Anyway, “that he had seen…” is correct because the first few words of the sentence say that “An expedition WAS SENT in 1949(obviously a date in the past)…” That means that action is over and done with (after all, it’s “was sent” and not "stop sending me spam mail!–continuous sending). Now, we already have an event in the simple past (the sending of the expedition); to signal that another past event that occured before the first event, the past perfect must be used. “Had” (past tense of to have) paired with the past participle of to see, seen, accomplishes just that. All past perfects are formed with the “had” + [past participle] combination.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you can just think about it. The expedition and the sight of the remains couldn’t have both occured at the same time, and he had to have seen it before an expedition can be sent to check (i.e., to verify) the report of it. That leaves the sight-before-the-expedition as the only possibility.</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

An expedition was sent in 1949 to check THE REPORT OF A TURKISH VILLAGER THAT he had seen the remains of Noah’s ark on Mount Ararat.

I will give you my explanation, on top of antonioray’s.</p>

<p>Let’s say that it is 1949 and you just saw Bigfoot. You tell a reporter, “I have seen Bigfoot” (present perfect tense). Sixty-one years later, now, you might say, “I told a reporter 61 years ago that I had seen Bigfoot” (past perfect tense).</p>

<p>The present perfect tense indicates that an action took place in the past, but still affects you in the present. It focuses less on the past event and more on the effect of the event and how it is still relevant to you now. For example, if you say, “I have studied,” you are not trying to describe how the study session went; instead, you are simply saying that the effect of your studying remains and that you are ready to take the test. Therefore, the statement “I have seen Bigfoot” implies that the vision is still readily in the subject’s mind, and perhaps those nearby should have some sort of fear.</p>

<p>Now, past perfect tense indicates that an action took place in the past, and it doesn’t affect you anymore. This may mean that the action took place in the past and simply ended in the past; or this may mean that it took place in the past, is still taking place in the present, but nonetheless doesn’t affect you or isn’t important to you anymore. For example, if you studied, and took the test, then you might say, “I had studied for the test, so I aced it.”</p>

<p>Similarly, the report that a villager had seen something has lost its relevance, so use the past perfect tense. There was a time when the report had been relevant.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the simple past often works as well. You can say, “I studied for the test, so I aced it.” But it is less accurate, because you don’t know which took place, the studying or the acing. But of course we know for obvious reasons.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>Hmmmm, yea the past perfect does signal a former significance that does not extend into the present; however, I think the only distinction between simple past and past perfect that one must know for the SATs lies in the “which of the two happened first” analysis.</p>

<p>The SAT isn’t going to leave it up to the test taker to determine the significance of an event; who’s to say that the present day dropping of a pencil is more significant than one-of-if-not-THE sighting of Bigfoot in 1949?</p>

<p>

"I studied for the test, so I aced it.

Readers can understand that because “so” basically means “consequently” in that sentence, so it’s obvious that the acing of the test came after the studying (unless you’re an oddball who studies after acing the test but not beforehand). Strict adherence to tense application rules requires the past perfect to be used when describing an event that occured before another event described in the simple past, so the most accurate version of that sentence, tense-wise, is (edited to remove awkwardness) “Because I had studied for the test, I aced it.” That sentence clearly shows that the studying preceded the acing. “Because” still means “as a consequence,” so(consequently) no meaning is lost.</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

Readers can understand that because “so” basically means “consequently” in that sentence, so it’s obvious that the acing of the test came after the studying

If you’re going to put it like that then wouldn’t it be obvious that the villager saw the remains of Noah’s Ark BEFORE the expedition was carried out to check if the report was true? This is such an irrelevant point.</p>

<p>

The SAT isn’t going to leave it up to the test taker to determine the significance of an event; who’s to say that the present day dropping of a pencil is more significant than one-of-if-not-THE sighting of Bigfoot in 1949?

It seems like you’re taking the approach too literally. There’s no way to tell the difference between “I have seen X” and “I saw X” without taking into consideration the event’s influence. Both “I have studied” and “I studied” imply that the studying ended. So how do you account for the distinction by simply looking at which event took place earlier?</p>

<p>

so the most accurate version of that sentence, tense-wise, is (edited to remove awkwardness) “Because I had studied for the test, I aced it.”

It’s in the same tense. I used the conjunction “so” simply to illustrate the idea.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

Both “I have studied” and “I studied” imply that the studying ended. So how do you account for the distinction by simply looking at which event took place earlier?

Well for there to be a time difference, there has to be another event. You’re right in saying that, in isolation, “I have studied” and “I studied” both indicate that the event is in the past. In a two event relationship, the presence of both the past perfect and the simple past also indicates that both events occured in the past.</p>

<p>

If you’re going to put it like that then wouldn’t it be obvious that the villager saw the remains of Noah’s Ark BEFORE the expedition was carried out to check if the report was true? This is such an irrelevant point

</p>

<p>You misunderstood me. Your sentence included “so,” which means “consequently (by definition, ‘after A and because of A’)” when used in that manner. To completely parallel the Noah’s Ark sentence, your sentence would have to have read “I studied, I aced the test.” “So” was very important to your sentence because it functioned as a conjunctive adverb describing the relationship between the two clauses.</p>

<p>The original sentence lacks a conjunctive adverb. The only relationship that exists between the two events is time-based, so the past perfect vs simple past must be used to signal it.</p>

<p>I mentioned the conspicuity of which of the two happened first to aid Viggyram in deciding which of the two takes the past perfect–the earlier one.</p>

<p>

It’s in the same tense.

Yes, that both occured in the past, but not which of the two occured earlier–at least, the time distinction is not obvious because you lack “had” but made up for it–partially–by including “so” which carries a cause&effect (before->after) inflection.</p>

<p>As an example, consider this:</p>

<p>“Because I ate, I slept.”</p>

<p>Obviously, eating can’t induce sleep by itself; to correct the sentence, we could say:</p>

<p>“Because I ate so much bean-paste, I slept.”</p>

<p>It’s obvious that the “slept” came after the “ate” because “because” is there, but to be completely correct, we should say</p>

<p>“Because I had eaten so much bean paste, I went to sleep.”</p>

<p>Normally I wouldn’t care about grammar this much, as most of my sentences would read something like “dog eat earth,” but the SAT requires completely correctness.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>btw i should’ve added that conjunctive adverbs do not exempt the clauses they connect from adherence to the rules of tenses</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

“Because I ate so much bean-paste, I slept.”</p>

<p>It’s obviously that the “slept” came after the “ate” because “because” is there, but to be completely correct, we should say</p>

<p>“Because I had eaten so much bean paste, I went to sleep.”

This is wrong. Both sentences are completely correct. An effect always occurs after a cause. It is not any more correct to be overly punctilious about it. Similarly, you always report things after the event takes place. Which of two events took place first is irrelevant. </p>

<p>Presumably, Viggyram understands that the simple past tense works–i.e., “the report that he saw something. . . .” So, to explain why the past perfect works as well, one would say that the event had been important for a while. From that concept we can gather that one thing’s taking place before another is a simple form of that rule. It’s very uncomplicated.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>To suggest that tenses no longer matter after a cause->effect relationship is estahblished yields absurd conclusions.</p>

<p>“Because I will eat beans, I slept.”</p>

<p>It’s not a matter of being overly punctilious (can’t see how this word can vary in intensity); “Because I ate so much bean-paste, I slept” says something that everybody can comprehend, but it is not completely correct. </p>

<p>For example, everyday speech contains syntax that the SAT considers wrong, but I’ve never experienced a situation in which a person did not understand another because the latter had said “their” in place of “he or she.”</p>

<p>Clear, yes, but correct, no.</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

“Because I ate so much bean-paste, I slept”

This is completely correct. The events took place in the past, so you can use past tense, whether simple or perfect. Using “their” instead of “he or she” is an actual grammatical error. You don’t have to distinguish between two past events if you don’t absolutely have to. The point of the sentence is to denote cause and effect and that’s it. Even if the sentence didn’t imply that one event occurred before the other it would still be correct, because that isn’t relevant.</p>

<p>

It’s not a matter of being overly punctilious (can’t see how this word can vary in intensity)

It can. Adverbs modify adjectives. Generally phrases like “too unique” are redundant. “Punctilious” just means something like “careful.”</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

Using “their” instead of “he or she” is an actual grammatical error.

Using the simple past in phrases in which the past perfect should have been used is also an error.</p>

<p>

It can. Adverbs modify adjectives.

</p>

<p>“Extremely” is an adverb and “Perfect” is an adjective.</p>

<p>

Generally phrases like “too unique” are redundant. “Punctilious” just means something like “careful.”

It means something like it but it’s not exactly it.</p>

<p>“Perfect” etymologically means “made thoroughly,” but while there are different degrees of thoroughness, something made perfect cannot be made any more thoroughly.</p>

<p>Punctilious already means “paying too much attention to the rules.” What does overly punctilious mean? Paying more than too much attention to the rules? Impossible.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

“Because I ate so much bean-paste, I slept”

</p>

<p>This sentence is correct.</p>

<p>Edit: I misread the sentence. See my correction below.</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

Using the simple past in phrases in which the past perfect should have been used is also an error.

Yes, but that the past perfect should have been used in the sentence about bean paste is not so.</p>

<p>

Punctilious already means “paying too much attention to the rules.” What does overly punctilious mean? Paying more than too much attention to the rules? Impossible.

“Punctilious” doesn’t mean “paying too much attention.” It means “paying great attention.” It is not necessarily a negative word. “Overly” makes it so.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>From my guide:</p>

<p>

Past perfect: The past perfect tense is used to refer a past action that occurred before another referenced past action. by often signals the past perfect tense (e.g., By the time we arrived, Bob had left). When a prepositional phrase already indicates that an action came before another action, the simple past may be used instead of the past perfect (e.g., Before we left, I went to the bathroom) or Before we left, I had gone to the bathroom).

</p>

<p>“Because” cannnot serve as this prepositional indicator of time; thus, we need the past perfect:</p>

<p>Because I had eaten so much bean-paste, I slept.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>It’s correct but not fully correct in the same way that “I’m faster than he” is correct but is missing a verb.</p>

<p>EDIT: Does Silverturtle’s most recent post work in my favor?
EDIT2, after scrolling up to Silverturtle’s 1st post: I rest my case.</p>

<p>Punctilious: extremely attentive to punctilios
extreme: of the greatest possible extent, degree</p>

<p>I mean I hate resorting to dictionary definitions but I really don’t think I’m wrong on this.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>My understanding of “punctilious” is that it need not be denotatively negative or extreme, so in that sense it is not an absolute adjective and therefore can be modified adverbially.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

Does Silverturtle’s most recent post work in my favor?

</p>

<p>Yes, I agree with you on the tense question but disagree on the modification of “punctilious.”</p>

<p>(I just realized that my parentheses are messed up in that excerpt from the guide. :))</p>

[antonioray]

<p>Silverturtle, what do you think “perfect” means?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Silverturtle, what do you think “perfect” means?

</p>

<p>His SAT score! :)</p>