<p>@maxyend No worries</p>
<p>@orangejy95 The question was along the lines of ‘How would the author of passage 2 react to the claims made by the author of passage 1’</p>
<p>Do u remember the other answer choices instead of overblown?</p>
<p>For the sentence completion in which the answer was “prevalence proliferation”</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the actual sentence???</p>
<p>i’ll be honest with you, this little post you have dedicated to me is very flattering. on one hand it saves me the trouble of having to go back to previous pages to see what i posted and on another, it shows that your utterly narcissistic self assurance. Let me educate you a few things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>critical reading is probably my best subject in the SAT 1. I get 1 or 2 wrong on the majority of practice tests I do consistently. </p></li>
<li><p>its painstaking attitude alright. Deft assurance saids it all. The passage doesn’t even focus on his skills. Boo Hoo for you.</p></li>
<li><p>The global warming questions I’ll give you to. I was a little “confounded” (thats how you use the damn word) by those questions. But I’m pretty sure its reliable, and not overblown.</p></li>
<li><p>still on the bat passage? yeah im sorry you got one wrong for sure. since you believe yourself to be flawless in this section this must be quite a blow to your self esteem. I’m done trying to move an immovable object.</p></li>
<li><p>ill concede the invoke confound fiasco to you. confound actually makes more sense… </p></li>
<li><p>the piano brothers. the answer is that it expresses the brothers through their playing. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>go sign up for your 3rd SAT now, maxyend. i mean seriously.</p>
<p>Another maybe reasonable choice: reliable</p>
<p>@macsydney</p>
<p>thank you. overblown is an overblown answer choice, literally.</p>
<p>Guys, I have to say I agree with the “reliable” part. From what I recall, the first passage exclaimed how global warming was an issue we needed to address asap. The second passage agrees with the notion but is unsure about how we should approach the issue… the fact that the author wishes to be extremely careful and nutty about the situation shows his concern for the climatic changes and how significant they are in terms of the hazardous effects …</p>
<p>hey guys</p>
<p>so, do you remember the questions that had these answers? </p>
<p>6.prevalence proliferation
7.distrust
10.arrest sequestered</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the answer choices to that question?</p>
<p>Furthermore, the whole passage about the brothers playing and the jazz if you think about it - the overarching theme - is that the author LOVEs and WANTS TO play jazz. He hates the piano, he doesn’t want to play it, but he does because his mother forces him to. His brothers are also forced. And although his brothers may be driven to satisfy their mother’s desires, they ultimately are not very skillful with the piano and that sentence shows that they don’t genuinely enjoy the process (although they may not explicitly admit it - their actions just blatantly show it)</p>
<p>I don’t see why the author would bother writing a sentence about how his brothers play differently and the outcome of that…</p>
<p>hahaha, Miasanmia, I’m looking forward to results day (not sure how your practice test stats are supposed to back your argument, because I can say the exact same thing (and I would be telling the truth).</p>
<p>Deft assurance is completely different to painstaking attitude</p>
<p>pain·stak·ing/ˈpānzˌtākiNG/
Adjective:<br>
Done with or employing great care and thoroughness: “painstaking attention to detail”.</p>
<p>/deft/
Adjective:<br>
Neatly skillful and quick in one’s movements: “a deft piece of footwork”.
Demonstrating skill and cleverness.</p>
<p>In fact, it’s pretty much the opposite. So whatever, remain so deluded. It doesn’t make a difference now anymore anyway, just don’t be surprised if your scores come back terrible. Also, I am retaking it in november, but that will be my second try, and only because I messed up with the essay timing.</p>
<p>“One distinguished scientist was so indignantly incredulous that he seized Galambos by the shoulders and shook him while complaining that we could not possibly mean such an outrageous suggestion. Radar and sonar were still highly classified developments in military technology, and the notion that bats might do anything even remotely analogous to the latest trumps of electron engineering struck most people not only as implausible but emotionally repugnant.”</p>
<p>The answer is uncomprehending. Note “so indignantly incredulous”. Incredulous=uncomprehending. Incensed cannot be. I am sure.</p>
<p>Yea I put comprehend too
the dictionary says: to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive: He did not comprehend the significance of the ambassador’s remark.</p>
<p>But I feel like incensed just might be right. I switched between the two but… i just chose uncomprehending when I thought like this: “The scientist isn’t ****ed off about this… he’s just in disbelief…more like ‘no way are u serious, wth’” </p>
<p>LOL… but ultimately, I do not know the correct answer so I am open to persuasion : )</p>
<p>Incredulous is not=uncomprehending</p>
<p>And in the context of the passage, people aren’t angry/incensed about how other animals have these special skills that humans can only acquire through instruments… we’re just sort of like baffled you know? How could those animals have such abilities when we cannot? Disbelief → incredulous → uncomprehending </p>
<p>That’s how I thought heh…</p>
<p>I want to see an argument about “fundamental laws” versus “codified rules”. I don’t understand how to distinguish between them.</p>
<p>“codify” sort of has an aspect revolving around ‘arrangement’. Codified rules would mean that the rules are organized according to some plan or system. The question was asking for something that was more fundamental… the basic essential elements</p>
<p>And I do believe that “overblown” and “confound” were the correct answers.
Especially “overblown” one was very typical of SAT passages. One author makes exaggerated claims and then the other author criticizes such attitude.</p>
<p>It was definitely fundamental laws</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with you guys. It was supposed to be fundamental laws…</p>