<p><em>I put this post in wrong section before but here is the question in the right section almost exactly as it was written on the test.</em></p>
<p>QUESTION PERTAINING TO A SECTION ON CRITICAL READING: In the passage involving telescopes, the author describes the following situation: “Once I received my new high-powered telescope, I could see the golden nebulas, ursula major, hot and cold gases in distant galaxies, etc. These sights ballooned my system of what is plausible.”</p>
<p>What was the answer to this question (described above) of what the author felt about seeing the universe through his new telescope: Was it B. (hard to believe) or E. (difficult to take in)?
After first putting (hard to believe) as my answer choice, I started thinking that this question was a higher-level thinking problem since it was the last of the section. I believe the answer is (difficult to take in) for this reason… The author KNOWS that there are many different occurrences in the galaxy, therefore ruling out (hard to believe) as an answer choice. The answer, in my opinion, is (difficult to take in) because the author is shocked that there are SO MANY different phenomena across the galaxies, that it ballooned his system with what he thought was plausible.</p>
<p>Please give me an answer to this question and explain WHY your answer choice is correct. Thanks</p>
<p>I missed two sentence completions and anywhere from 2-4 passage questions, all of which are from the higher education passages. I personally question the viability of that section based on that fact.</p>
<p>This may be a dumb question, but on the SAT, does -1 equate to minus one question? Or does -1 equate to minus 4 questions at 1/4th of a point off each?</p>
<p>for each question you get wrong, its actually 67-1.25 (-1 for not getting the correct answer, -.25 for putting down a wrong one), and for omitted answers, its just 67-1</p>
<p>characterization of spice trade- ironic vs. dramatic
professor- pompous and stuffy
photographs take away from the novelty
question repeated w/ the pakistani people- growing indignant feeling
peremptory/ordeal
circumvent
assiduous
proper is closest to correct
snide
flop
easygoing
neophyte
predict reaction and respond
tennis spectators- close attention
primacy
disconcerted for the guy who had to extemporize
fundamentally vs solely
peremptory/ideal
method or whatever used in writing- analogous reasoning vs. repetition
grandma was being adamant when she stood in place
grandma was being a bully in the other one
sphinx’s gaze holds
similar thing in both passages- faculty’s role vs coursework can lead to good civil character
assertion followed by comical anecdote
idealistic
realistic
evocative for sphinx
hard to believe
familiar
author 2 answering a q by author 1
library sensory details
ephemereal but powerful
first paragraph provided context
confounded/inscrutable
she left resentfully acknowledged
conflicts
adjust the power instead of using maximum power
reflective but informative
he bought a book electronically while sitting in a library
systematically discredits vs 2 presents view 1 finds objectionable
eludes classification
defining a quality
adequate pinpoint
shortcomings
one of the girls was obedient
he tried to justify his actions
telescope passage represented development
dialogue shifted to personal insults
the senators lacked consensus unlikely
trifling
The Indian girls’ grandmother was commanding
Paper/medium of literature had fragility</p>
<p>Yoitsmikejones: The answer was “hard to believe” which I recall was answer choice E. Plausible is a synonym for possible, and these phenomena “ballooned his sense of the plausible,” which means that they widened his scope of he believes can exist in the world. Hence, this implies that some things in the universe are “hard to believe” because seeing them makes your sense of what is possible expand.</p>
<p>Your thought process was logical and certainly would be applauded in an English class. However, you have to realize that college board doesn’t reward creative analyses. Even “higher level thinking” questions leave much to be desired in terms of what answer choice ETS is looking for. It’s always the boring one.</p>
<p>And also, I think the “trifling” question was in an experimental section because I don’t remember it at all. It’s such a fabulous word! I’d definitely recall coming across it!</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the specific questions and other answer choices that go with all of these correct answers? </p>
<p>proper is closest to correct
primacy
disconcerted for the guy who had to extemporize
sphinx’s gaze holds
similar thing in both passages- faculty’s role vs coursework can lead to good civil character
idealistic
author 2 answering a q by author b
ephemereal but powerful
confounded/inscrutable
defining a quality
he tried to justify his actions
telescope passage represented development</p>
<p>Actually I forgot I had experimental, lol. I don’t really remember trifling but the projected question from a while back sounded familiar. It didn’t sound hard so I’m not worried</p>
<p>well, after re-reading the education passage that Hassal posted, one of the answers was definitely repetition, not analogous reasoning… “Teachers can…”, “Teachers can…” , “Teachers cannot…”, “they cannot” , “everyone loses”, “The students lose” , “The university loses”, “Higher education loses”,</p>
<p>Also, this is from the second education passage. "Fish’s principal argument against trying to develop character or prepare active citizens is that such goals are simply “unworkable”.</p>
<p>ok so, Fish’s principal argument against trying to develop character or prepare active citizens is that such goals are FUNDAMENTALLY “unworkable”.</p>
<p>vs.</p>
<p>Fish’s principal argument against trying to develop character or prepare active citizens is that such goals are SOLELY “unworkable”.</p>
<p>Also, one of the answers is definitely " passage 2 systematically discredits passage one" …
The author of passage one was Fish… look at this evidence directly from passage 2 </p>
<p>“In making this argument, Fish commits one of the basic errors identified in the previous chapter: he equates what an undergraduate education should accomplish with what professors can achieve in their classrooms. This is a cramped and excessively faculty-entered point of view.”</p>
<p>“Fish overlooks all that admissions policies, residential living arrangements, and extracurricular life can contribute to an undergraduate’s development/”</p>
<p>“Rather than deal with these findings, Fish commits another error common to faculty debates about undergraduate education.”</p>
<p>Ok, so the answer is definitely “systematically discredits”… cased close</p>
<p>Here’s my take on the civic participation/ higher level education question. The second author clearly believes that education can increase civic participation because he talks about how those who attend college tend to vote and participate in community service. The first author, near the end of the passage, mentions that even though educators shouldn’t aim to instill values in students, they could be a consequence of education. The answer choice was something along the lines of “higher level education CAN cause xyz.”</p>