<p>…ruminate, anyone?</p>
<p>I put philosophy because the first passage did not provide any method (a method must be clear in steps). Regarding cold-blooded, I put heartless detachment though I can argue for rational also (when viewed logically, her situation is depressing). My reasoning was that the author was emotional about her situation and that the opposite behavior is heartless detachment from her situation (strictly speaking, opposite of emotional is not rational). Who knows what the author meant!</p>
<p>I scored 2340 in my first attempt (740, perfect 800, perfect 800 + 12 on essay) with 3 CR questions wrong (no curve). My hope was that I would be able to score 800 in CR this time around but after reading this thread, I could have gotten one or two CR questions wrong.</p>
<p>Lol… About the mothodology versus philosophy debate: We need someone with a photographic memory to transcribe this, then we could ask Silverturtle. He’d know(:</p>
<p>for the exaggerated sentence completion, what was the other choices?</p>
<p>dont really remember that question ;o</p>
<p>I don’t remember the question, but it said someone was characterized by histrionic temperaments.</p>
<p>The question was something like: Even offstage, the acting troupe displayed ____ behavior, which was in line with their histrionic performance."</p>
<p>I remember choosing ‘elude’ over ‘forestall’ because if he was able to forestall aging then it wasn’t really a quackery was it? (don’t quite remember the actual question)</p>
<p>Well that’s the point. It can only forestall, but not actually tackle the problem/aging at its core.</p>
<p>The sentence was along those lines.</p>
<p>forestall: Prevent or obstruct (an anticipated event or action) by taking action ahead of time: “vitamins may forestall many diseases of aging”.
According to this definition, the doctor found a way to fight the problem of aging even at its core if he “forestalled”. Thus, I believe “elude” does have a chance despite “quackery” being the better term.</p>
<p>Elude is to escape from a danger, enemy, or pursuer, typically in a cunning or skillful way.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure that’s the right word for aging either.</p>
<p>Exactly. This SAT’s sentence completions were extremely ambiguous.</p>
<p>Escaping from danger makes sense because the sentence stated that “such nostrums could not elude the process of aging at its core.” it said that it could not completely escape, which means it did prevent it for a time.</p>
<p>I understand why quackery is a better term due to its medicinal uses but humbuggery works just as fine because humbuggery is like something nonsensical designed to trick so the main could have believed it was humbuggery because u cannot get rid of agings effects at the core</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, which I’m fairly certain that I do the two viable options were: Passage one presents a methodology that the author of Passage two has some reservations about, and Passage one describes a philosophy that Passage two discusses in more detail.
I think that it should be clear that methodology is the better answer, because the first passage discussed using photography as a medium to capture social injustices, and passage two was an individual example in which te author discussed, quite a bit, the “power” a camera can have in the wrong hands and the problems it can present. One question even asked what was analogous to the author’s description of using photographs incorrectly and the answer was the objections to Caldwell’s earlier stories. If these are the correct question choices, then I feel the answer is unequivocally methodology. While it may hold true that a philosophy was described in passage one, passage two employed the methodology woth reservations, and did not discuss it (the philosophy) in detail.</p>
<p>Forestall fits better. The second part of the sentence was something like: “… the superficial effects of aging.”</p>
<p>You stop the effects of aging, but not aging itself. That’s why it’s quackery.</p>
<p>What do you guys think a -3 or a -4 (with no omits) will be on this test? 750+??</p>
<p>most likely 750+</p>
<p>What would a -6 without omissions be around?</p>
<p>most likely 720-740.</p>
<p>I feel like -4 could be as high as 780 if it’s a lenient curve.</p>
<p>I normally score in the 700s on critical and thought this test was a lot easier than the blue book… Would this test be considered easy, medium or hard because it seems that others found it more difficult than I</p>