<p>@gthopeful93 I agree that Passage 2 discredits Passage 1 and your argument is very strong. On the other hand, I think that the answer choice was “the author of Passage 2 systematically discredits the FINDINGS in Passage 1,” not just “the author of Passage 2 systematically discredits Passage 1.” I don’t think that Passage 1 gave us any findings, did it?</p>
<p>Hey guys just to give my two cents on the pedantic vs. snide debate. Okay, so I am in no ways a CR “whiz” but what I will tell you is I always read the questions over and over to make sure I get what they’re asking. So, the debate essentially is this, if the question was the “author’s characterization of the army can be described as…” it’s snide. No debate. However if the question was “the author characterized the army as…” it has to be pedantic. The fact that no one has been able to remember the exact wording is astounding. The way I see it is although pedantic doesn’t have the best “fit” I would argue neither does snide, and pedantic is better. For example, pedantic clearly has a negative connotation and the author clearly viewed this “army” negativly. Another point, the word pedantic is almost always used in the context of education, and of course this passage was about what else, education. Lastly pedantic is just plain and simply one of those “SAT” words. You guys know what I mean, the didactic, the effusives, pedantics, etc. I don’t know I feel words like that are usually put there for a reason. I look at it as most people have know idea what pedantic means, so what would be the benifit of putting it in there if it wasn’t the right answer? If snide was clearly the right answer why not put a word thats more a part of the venacular that people might think is plausable. Lastly is the idea of the word snide. Snide is pretty extreme. It’s someone who underhandly mocks something, and has a strong connonatation. Here’s my feeling, we knew the author viewed the army negatively, hence a very negative word, pedantic. However the author was fairly respectful, even the question about whether he mocked or anticipated almost all of us agreed he did not mock. I don’t know I just feel that it is a bit extreme to say an author is snide 5-10 lines into a passage. But, it’s a shame no one remembers the exact wording.</p>
<p>In the Sphinx passage, why would the definition of “proper” be “correct” rather than “distinct/ive.” The sentences after the word proper show that the person saying the statement and his friend see different things when looking at it. While the person who said the word proper and his friend compare the Sphinx to kind of comical things, in the same paragraph, Mark Twain describes it as being like standing in the presence of God. These varying descriptions of it make “proper” seem to mean “distinct/ive.” Can someone tell me why he or she put “correct”?</p>
<p>Because it was atypical of Twain and the other guy to use incorrect positions. Come on man this isn’t even up for debate. The snide question-- you put up a good point. But this is what I think ETS wanted us to draw- he put " we- want- to- save- the world army" and this is pretty sarcastic…kind of GLARING. So snide was the most clear answer. He wasn’t being strict on details, so pedantic is out.</p>
<p>@alargeblackman14 I don’t think we are talking about the same question.</p>
<p>Proper was definitely correct---- I didn’t see any other answer choice close to it.</p>
<p>I am just copying this from my previous post but…
The sentences after the word proper show that the person saying the statement and his friend see different things when looking at it. While the person who said the word proper and his friend compare the Sphinx to kind of comical things, in the same paragraph, Mark Twain describes it as being like standing in the presence of God. These varying descriptions of it make “proper” seem to mean “distinct/ive.”</p>
<p>Well I guess it doesn’t matter now, can’t change what you put</p>
<p>Ok, so this is a direct quote from the sphinx passage: " ‘No drawing that I have seen conveys a proper idea of it’ , Fleubert wrote, which is probably true" … and this quote concludes a paragraph describing how “Egyptian ruins are so atmospheric they tend the watcher to blur reality- the overexcited traveler seeing more than there is.” So proper= correct</p>
<p>omg… f** hard… Consolidate List of Answers, anyone??</p>
<p>@adcomb, seriously? does no one read the thread anymore? look like three pages back and you’ll have 50 questions</p>
<p>Hey guys, anyone have a consolidated answers list!?</p>
<p>anyone put pedestrian for an answer on sc’s?</p>
<p>Nope. 10 char</p>
<p>even though 15 or so questions are missing from the answer list compiled, is it safe to say all the hard/worrysome ones have been taken account for? If so we don’t need to worry so much about the others.</p>
<p>I have a question. In the passage with the Pakistani grandmas, one of the answers had the choices cooking and decisions. I don’t remember what gave me that impression, but I thought one grandma was scolding the other for feeding one of the kids and making her avoid the grandma’s cooking cooking, which could be like taking her out. Why is cooking the best choice?</p>
<p>Hey guys, just popping in to sound off on the systematically discredits/ objectionable debate. I read back into the thread and someone summed up my thinking pretty well. I would have picked systematically discredits, except the answer choice was “systematically discredits the findings of author 1.” could you really say that author 1 presented “findings”? That’s a word that implies fact, not opinion. And even though “objectionable” seems, to me, a strong word, author 1 portrays his opponents in a very negative light, which makes the answer somewhat justified. I think college board could have picked a better word, but it’s the better of the two choices.</p>
<p>Findings doesn’t mean facts. Whatever someone states it is reasonable to say those are that person’s FINDINGS.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with alarge on this one:</p>
<p>finding can be defined as “A conclusion reached as a result of an inquiry, investigation, or trial”.</p>
<p>Yeah but the option said systematic DISCREDITING of his findings, which implies author 1 had credibility in the first place, or atleast thought he did. Since he didnt have any credibility, theres nothing to discredit…</p>