<p>It asked about the lines that included the academic specifically. It said something like, “Based on the author’s response to the academic in lines 54-56, what is characterized about the sphinx?” or something like that. I too put evocative nature because it could evoke good feelings (author) or negative ones (academic).</p>
<p>@ Calvin<br>
I personally thought that the author’s comment in the parentheses conveyed the idea that his opponents’ position was rather laughable…but to each his own.</p>
<p>can someone please explain the answer to the civil character one? did it have to word behavior in it? (somebody actually answer this please -_-)</p>
<p>garciac, the question was like “What do passage one and two both agree on?” The answer was " That academic courses can lead to better civil behavior" or something like that</p>
<p>Yes I up that ^</p>
<p>Do we have a compiled list for is section yet?</p>
<p>What was the question where the answer was flop?</p>
<p>It is not universal appeal, because the art history person said it was overrated. Evocative means to evoke some emotion or response, and each and every person that the author described had a different response to the sphinx - not necessarily a good one; thus it must be evocative.</p>
<p>Krungle: Which is why, like I said before, Critical Reading is so freaking subjective. I really hate this section so much ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Was snide answer choice ‘E’?</p>
<p>And does anybody remember a question with answer choice “inane” or “trifling”?</p>
<p>Yes it was E</p>
<p>I thought the answer was pedantic which is meticulous with the smallest and irrelevant details? Snide means either derogatory in an indirect fashion or devious and underhanded. I though the question asked how the author characterized the army, why would he characterize then as snide? It is not like the army can be derogatory or something- nor was it devious and underhanded?</p>
<p>Banned: In the context of what was going on in paragraph 1, the author was discussing how these teachers were creating “armies” that had great morals and whatnot. The author did not agree with this stance in that these teachers should not moralize students but rather, teach them academically-related material, and thus, used “armies” in almost a mocking manner.</p>
<p>Well that goes my 800. Do you guys think -3 will be a 780 or 770?</p>
<p>It was snide. The whole point why he categorized them into an army was to be snide. The question was really asking you why did he categorize everyone who thought that morals and civics should be taught in academic classes (what was his connotation to those kind of people), not what was his connotation to the army reference. </p>
<p>Also, when it asked to compare the two passages, did author of passage one think that passage 2’s authors ideas were not feasible?
In prior posts, there is an argument saying that he thought it was ideal, but I dont agree with that.</p>
<p>@banned</p>
<p>how did you get -3? Did you omit some?</p>
<p>Nope -3 = -4 with the 1.25 deduction. Hey did we finally find a solution to the objectionable vs. systematic disproving one?</p>
<p>Hey, how do you guys predict the curve for this test?
I already omited 2…idk i many I can get wrong for 700, but I am pretty sure I am retaking it on October…oh darn…</p>
<p>@banned
I maintain that it’s systematic (my argument on post 304), but there hasn’t been a definite conclusion.</p>
<p><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>I am using May 2011</p>
<p>I answered systematic as well.</p>
<p>@achieve bump. i would also like to know what the question was regarding flop.</p>