<p>My statement that you quoted describes the “interest” as a physical, monetary sum inside the painting. The question would then be ambiguous (even if you don’t consider it originally ambiguous).</p>
<p>Again, you’re reading into things.</p>
<p>Read the sentence literally.</p>
<p>I’m not reading into things (I would be, if this wasn’t SAT writing).</p>
<p>However, this is SAT writing. Every possible interpretation has to be right for a correct sentence. In this case, the “it” has the possibility of being ambiguous. </p>
<p>We’ve all seen the modifier sentences where something is illogically modified. Ex:</p>
<p>While visiting the Statue of Liberty, Mr. Johnson’s hat was blown into the harbor waters and quickly sank beneath the turbulent waves.</p>
<p>Hats never visit anywhere. But this would still be incorrect on SAT writing. My point is that the question has the possibility of being ambiguous.</p>
<p>Ex: I could replace interest with “monetary sum”</p>
<p>Although I am acquainted with Mr. Bartholomew and have long known of his -monetary sum- in the painting, that he would go to such lengths to obtain it astonishes me.</p>
<p>Does he want to obtain the monetary sum or the painting?</p>
<p>There were two questions that had “_______ and I” as errors. I know one was in the 10 minute section.</p>
<p>Was the “______ and I” the error in the other section? Was it supposed to be “_____ and me.”?</p>
<p>EDIT: And I’m confident that jamesford is right on the painting question. There was not an error in that sentence.</p>
<p>how does one have a monetary sum in a painting?</p>
<p>Jeez. I leave for one hour and a little, innocent joke turns into an object of debate. </p>
<p>I hope you realize it was just a joke. But to dispel any confusion, it would be obtain an interest ON, not in, if refered to monetarily. Therefore, there is no debate.</p>
<p>I think it’s no error</p>
<p>misplaced modifiers are usually quite obvious</p>
<p>wow…this question is really controversial…!!</p>
<p>CB should drop this question so no one can argue about it.</p>
<p>^the answer is no error. end of story.</p>
<p>Has anyone who emailed the college board about the Bartholomew one heard back from them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see the connection. The example you gave has nothing to do with ambiguity. It’s pretty obvious that hats don’t visit tourist attractions.</p>
<p>Let’s put it this way: what’s the most common, obvious definition of interest?</p>
<p>im confident that ur mom is right on the painting question</p>
<p>we will get it flucing voided
it shud be curved making the SAT writing seciton out of 48</p>
<p>On a stricly and parochially grammatical level, I agree the pronoun’s antecedent is ambiguous. However, there is no precedent that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot of questions) for the SAT to test a pronoun whose antecedent is so contextually blatant.</p>
<p>kobebryant4life, watch your language.</p>
<p>I do think that Collegeboard should drop this question because this question is very </p>
<p>controversial…(various meanings of interest and it…etc.)</p>
<p>yea they shud sat2350
sat2350 dont tell me what to do lollllll lol haha</p>
<p>they shud drop it tho this is ridiculous im frustrated </p>
<p>why cant collegeboard drop it???</p>
<p>Because despite us arguing about the question, they really don’t care. If they have no reason to drop it (i.e. if only one answer is right and the other isn’t), then they won’t. </p>
<p>Everyone is just arguing semantics now, which I find somewhat pointless as no one is going to give in anyway. </p>
<p>And kobe, I think the mods will be able to tell you to watch your language…</p>
<p>oh & the debate with the painting/it.
the “it” was the error ( i think atleast) because the “it” was ambiguous as it could refer to either his interest, or the painting itself</p>
<p>can we discuss the “just by” vs. “by just” question?</p>
<p>I never got the Bartholomew one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, this sentence had no error. Mr. Bart was not trying to “obtain” his interest; it was the lengths he was willing to go to “obtain” the painting that astonished the speaker.</p>