<p>@maxyend there was an answer emphasize/exaggerate the similarities, maybe you’re mixing them up? I made the same mistake a while back.</p>
<p>Sent from my GT-I9000 using CC</p>
<p>That’s what i’m thinking too, there was another question which was about “emphasise the similarities between bats and humans” for the question about “this isn’t just some vague metaphor”</p>
<p>Yes!!</p>
<p>Sent from my GT-I9000 using CC</p>
<p>Guys the passage about the dancing move, in which there was a question that asked about the author’s characterization of the dance move in lines 1-3, I reallly think that dazzling is not correct. Instead “predictable” seems to be the more logical choice as its REALLY AWKWARD TO CHARACTERIZE A DANCE AS DAZZLING!! I mean dazzling in literal terms, means SHINING.
The reference lines went along the lines of “if you have ever seen this back flip …jumping over blahblahblah, then you have witnessed a dance from this dancer” This makes the author’s characterization as “predictable” as he is generalizing about the dance move, not characterizing it a dazzling or shiny. </p>
<p>Another question from the reading section that I happen to remember, “incensed” was certainly better than “uncomprehending” because the word in the context “reluctant to believe” kind of gives away that he was adamant in his belief and not uncomprehending/puzzled. </p>
<p>Also i think the question that you guys have all asserted “fundamental laws” as the answer choice is highly debatable between “fundamental laws” and “basic assumptions”, in which i think the latter choice had a more logical appeal to me.</p>
<p>@ darvey
why do you think is the basic assumption</p>
<p>I think it was exaggerating. Because the whole point of the passage was that bats use echolocation in the same way we use sight, so comparing it to the whole cave thing would be exaggerating the differences.</p>
<p>@Darvey, I agree about incensed. The dance was definitely dazzling, he called the move something in the passage that was similar to dazzling (outrageous?). Fundamental laws is also definitely right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>just read that again, it’s definitely fundamental laws. You don’t explain “basic assumptions” of vision using mathematical calculations.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the math question with the two hoses??? IT was the last question on one of the sections?</p>
<p>@Darvey
as you said “dazzling” in LITERAL terms means shining or extremely bright,
but what makes you think it was used in literal terms?</p>
<p>Dazzling: (figurative) extremely impressive, beautiful, or skillful : a dazzling display of football.</p>
<p>so its not awkward to say that a dance was dazzling.</p>
<p>@mozhu, yes. The answer was t=36.
@Maxyend, yes, the passage as a whole may suggest that, but the paragraph in which the question was based talks about how misleading it is to go into a cave and blah blah blah, hence i think it should be ‘artificial experience.’</p>
<p>I recalled that i chose exclude Exaggeration because i thought the method is actually reducing the difference, for it is simulating a bat. I don’t think my theory is very logical, however, but i really think it is not Exaggerating the differences…</p>
<p>I’m sorry. i mean i “excluded” Exaggeration…</p>
<p>@MacSydney: Yes, it wasn’t ‘exaggerating.’ What answer did you choose?</p>
<p>What is the question? What does metaphor serve to?</p>
<p>too Artificial</p>
<p>What was the question under answer anomalies and what were other answers anyone remembers?</p>
<p>Does anyone know the november 2010 curve for CR?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>@user22, nope.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously it is artificial, but that’s not what they’re asking. They’re asking why it’s misleading. It’s misleading because bats don’t go through all that effort to get the same results, so it exaggerates the differences between humans and bats sensing.</p>
<p>@vicbrasil</p>
<p>here: <a href=“http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf[/url]”>http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf</a> </p>
<p>10/10 are the november 2010 ones. I don’t think they’ll be the same as ours though.</p>
<p>@Maxyend: okay, but how does that exaggerate the difference? Sure, there is a difference between their sensing, but there’s nothing to suggest it exaggerating?</p>
<p>Sent from my GT-I9000 using CC</p>