<p>how does it not matter? some of the answers had singular antecedents and some had plural antecedents. i was wondering if the subject was singular or not dick</p>
<p>jamesford - SAT writing is not about common sense. Look at some of the misplaced modifier errors that come up frequently. Many ambiguous questions do make sense if you read them with a touch of logic. However, if it is ambiguous at all, it is wrong. Reading literally is always advocated on the SAT writing section. I still believe “it” was an ambiguous pronoun.</p>
<p>what do you guys say about the birds? 'most mascular…" “more mascular…”?</p>
<p>^ It was something like “The body of the hummingbird is more muscular than that of any other bird.” You had to compare the bodies of the birds themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s another argument to support my position: the kid said that he had known of the guy’s interest in the painting for a long time. Consequently, the guy already had an interest in the painting so how is it possible for him to obtain something he already has?</p>
<p>^just because a guy had an interest in the painting does not mean he owned it. therefore he obtained something that he had interest in but did not own before.</p>
<p>so pretty much, for the last question in the 10 minute section
everyone put correct as is?
it was the tecniques for chimpanzees are unique to the ones…
something along those lines</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m arguing that the “it” was not ambiguous. What are you trying to argue?</p>
<p>I wasn’t arguing against you. I was trying to add on to what your saying but it didn’t really work lol</p>
<p>“it” was ambiguous. This question is very controversial…haha</p>
<p>Here’s another argument to support my position: the kid said that he had known of the guy’s interest in the painting for a long time. Consequently, the guy already had an interest in the painting so how is it possible for him to obtain something he already has? </p>
<p>While what you say makes common sense, but you cannot assume that this is what the writer intended. Ill tell you what ive told ppl b4: you can’t twist or turn the meaning of the sentence so that it makes logical sense; you have to analyze it for what it is, not what the author intended to write.</p>
<p>Here’s another argument to support my position: the kid said that he had known of the guy’s interest in the painting for a long time. Consequently, the guy already had an interest in the painting so how is it possible for him to obtain something he already has? </p>
<p>While what you say is common sense, you cannot assume that this is what the writer intended. Ill tell you what ive told ppl b4: you can’t twist or turn the meaning of the sentence so that it makes logical sense; you have to analyze it for what it is, not what the author intended to write.</p>
<p>@ jamesford,</p>
<p>Can you post the question you guys are arguing about?</p>
<p>was there an error for the life of bees one?</p>
<p>The sentence was something like</p>
<p>“While I had long known of Mr. Smith’s interest in the painting, that he went to such lengths to obtain it still shocks me.”</p>
<p>Some people are arguing that “it” is ambiguous and could refer to either “interest” or “painting.” Smith had already possessed an interest in the painting so there’s no reason to him to go to “such lengths” to obtain something he already has.</p>
<p>^I’ve got your back jamesford</p>
<p>The only way E would not be right answer is if there were two things to compare to. A sentence is ambiguous only if the two things to compare to could both be referred to by the pronoun. “interest” and “painting” are incomparable, except for the fact that they are both pronouns. A sentence that would show ambiguity would be “If your arm hurts after lifting a weight during exercise, you should apply ice to it immediately rather than wait until the next day” (from rocket review). It is POSSIBLE for it to refer to either arm or weight. It’s ILLOGICAL for you to ice the weight, but not impossible. There is a difference between impossibility and illogicality (is that even a word?). The construction of the sentence is impossible to interpret “it” as meaning “interest” not because it doesn’t make sense, but because it is impossible to obtain an interest.</p>
<p>Note: I take back my last statement. You actually can obtain an interest, if you are talking about revenue. But that’s another “interest” and another story altogether.</p>
<p>A sentence is ambiguous only if the two things to compare to could both be referred to by the pronoun</p>
<p>That is not true at all!!. A sentence can ambiguous even if the two things compared don’t have any possibility of comparision. That’s what makes a sentence ambiguous!!!</p>
<p>dareallycoolguy…you just contradicted your argument</p>
<p>Mr. Bartholomew could indeed have a financial interest (monetary sum) inside the painting…it would thus be ambiguous.</p>
<p>FYI, one does not obtain an interest. One pursues it.</p>
<p>Even if we consider the question as a no error with an interest (synonymous with desire), it could be interpreted another way…</p>
<p>Mr. Bartholomew could have a physical interest (monetary sum) inside the painting, which he wants to obtain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re reading way too much into things.</p>
<p>Would anyone go through a lot of crap just to obtain an interest? Either you’re interested in something or you’re not. You don’t force yourself to hurdle obstacle after obstacle to obtain an interest.</p>