<p>I can’t remember the passage very clearly. I think I found a line or two that lead me to believe the passage was more than just describing an activity. I can’t remember what it was though. </p>
<p>^brixx21
I think it was: She is often labeled as outgoing because she is RELAXED; she is not nervous or EXCITABLE.</p>
<p>The passage is in the google doc, near the beginning, if your memory needs refreshing.</p>
<p>I’m apparently in the minority, but I really just don’t see how it is analyze a misconception. It’s brought up in the first paragraph and then dropped completely. I mean I dunno…that just seems so crazy to me that it would be the right answer. I’m not saying it isn’t, I just don’t see how. At all.</p>
<p>The misconception was that writing was an easy task and the author analyzed it by looking at all aspects of writing (what it takes, exceptions to the misconception, “water vein” example). I wouldn’t really say that an activity was simply being described. The misconception was the crux of the passage. I had a very similar question in the practice test that I had taken on Friday, thank god. Tricky one for sure</p>
<p>It really wasn’t the crux though. I mean sure he used it to introduce the topic, but on the whole it was describing, albeit metaphorically, the process of becoming a good writer. The water vein example didn’t serve to dispel the misconception, it served to show how, despite not having any apparent talent, most of us have the ability to write well hidden deep inside ourselves. I dunno.</p>
<p>After reading the passage again I’m fairly certain it was analyze a misconception. Here he describes the misconception: “Most people, though, only see the surface reality of writing and think of writers as involved in quiet, intellectual work done in their study. If you have the strength to lift a coffee cup, they figure, you can write a novel.” This is the beginning of his essay and I feel for that reason it is the most important part. He does spend a considerable amount of time discussing the differences between what each writer has to do based on his or her’s inherent skill; however, I think he ties it back into the essay at the end: “Most of what I know about writing I’ve learned through running every day. These are practical, physical lessons.” Again, he equates writing to physical labor, in this case, distance running. </p>
<p>You could still be right, but I was discussing this question in the google docs last night and there seemed to be a consensus on analyzing a misconception. Like it didn’t seem like the author was really writing this just to talk about writing (describe an activity, no real purpose)? But he was looking into all the grueling tasks of writing ya know (contrary to the misconception). Don’t stress it my dude, only 10-20 points. I don’t want to sound super cocky but I’m almost certain.</p>
<p>@lcmcb1 Yea I’m well aware of that part, and that sentence alone certainly addresses the misconception, but I feel like anything beyond the first paragraph really doesn’t.</p>
<p>@Peezus Well I dunno. I mean you can describe an activity and definitely still have a real purpose. You can describe something as literally or as figuratively as you want, with as many metaphors as you feel the need to use. I’m definitely aware of the consensus, I just don’t get it. But I guess my main point is description =/= lack of purpose/meaning or writing for the sake of writing.</p>
<p>I’m trying not to stress, and if this is the only CR I got wrong I think I’m ok, but more than anything it’s just baffling to me.</p>
<p>@ckoepp127
Yeah, I saw that that part was pointed out already so I edited my post. Read the new addition and I found where I believe he tied it back in in the conclusion.</p>
<p>The reason I’m so certain about this is because I answered this question almost word for word even before I knew the question. (I usually write down the main point of the passage when I finish reading. To get the main point, one needs a solid understanding of the first paragraph, as the paragraphs following will be in support of this main point). That’s a technique I’ve always used and experienced great success with. I understand your point of view and see where you’re coming from, but I gotta stick with analyze a misconception</p>
<p>Still, that is in essence a description of writing via analogy with running. He is not actively dispelling the misconception, nor is he analyzing the misconception itself. Actually analyzing a misconception would look a lot different and would be more explicit imo, something like “so based on x it’s clear that y just doesn’t hold up”.</p>
<p>I mean yea Peezus but the thing is I was just as confident in what I put down, answered that question without even batting an eye. Most of the time when I get CRs wrong it’s after a lot of deliberation and consideration, not after quickly answering ones that seem easier.</p>
<p>Well at any rate I’ve got to go for a bit.</p>
<p>The questions he asks at the end all directly relate to the misconception he stated at the beginning. He feels that writing is similar to physical labor and almost the entire introduction and conclusion involve him relating these two ideas. The questions are his analysis of the misconception. They’re his way of showing how similar writing and running actually are.</p>
<p>Everything @lcmcb1 said plus describing an activity seems like a trap answer to be honest</p>
<p>Wasn’t the choice “analyze an assumption” or something along those lines? I don’t recall it saying misconception…</p>
<p>@dopecake
It may have been. Assumption would have a similar meaning though.</p>
<p>@lcmcb1 okay just making sure, im so nervous about this test lol</p>
<p>I am almost 100% certain that it was not about analyzing a misconception: I think ‘describing an activity’ is the correct answer. Sure, he expresses this misconception in the beginning as a way to get himself into the piece, but the entirety of the piece does not really serve that purpose. Instead, it describes the experience of being a writer, whether it be young or old, talented or not-so-talented. I really don’t see how he’s dispelling a misconception with this discussion. Rather, he’s describing the activity that is writing and perhaps presenting evidence along the way that could serve to dispel that misconception, but I don’t think he is actively analyzing that misconception: heck, he barely mentions it after the first paragraph. </p>
<p>Analysis requires some depth, yet he really just scratches the surface of that misconception and then moves onto his general discussion of the process of writing. I was perfectly sure of this on the test and I’m still sure of it now. </p>
<p>Plus, I already have one wrong for CR (darn), so I can’t get another 
(I don’t think…? Is -2 CR less than an 800?). </p>
<p>You’re right, countingkg.</p>
<p>The passage was not a mere “description of an activity”. The misconception that writing is a simple activity is analyzed and disproved throughout the ENTIRE passage. Take a look at any paragraph, it all relates back to the central point. I means he’s not just writing about writing because it’s fun, he has a purpose. Btw, -2 on cr will likely still give you an 800 :)</p>