<p>i thought the vocab was pretty tough. there were a lot of vocab based reading questions and knowing the nuances of said definitions like humble and cavalier lol.</p>
<p>i was confusing between " inflated style" and " insincere something" and chose inflated style b/c it’s less extreme… don’t know if that’s true. anyone’s suggestion?</p>
<p>I chose inflated style too</p>
<p>i chose inflatd style</p>
<p>inflated style fo sho</p>
<p>ugh one thing i remember is that it wasnt infalted style which i picekd</p>
<p>i chose inflated style…she thought they were too oratorical</p>
<p>Insincere sentiments was the answer.</p>
<p>Ok, I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but here it goes, seeing as the OP who offered an explanation stopped short. Describe the tone of the following passage (I’m paraphrasing):</p>
<p>As I walked by her house, I could hear Chopin flying off her fingers. A real prodigy. </p>
<p>Options: Sardonic/ nonchalant</p>
<p>Consensus: Sardonic - disdainfully or skeptically humorous. Synonym: sarcastic</p>
<p>Argument: She pretended not to practice “falling onto the piano”, etc - therefore, the narrator was being sarcastic when she suggested that her friend was a prodigy.
Counter Argument: The tone was over two lines - if the tone was truly disdainful, than the narrator was saying “She can’t play Chopin, she isn’t a prodigy”. However, there was absolutely no suggestion that her friend was a bad piano player at all - therefore, what is the disdain in the first line? Secondly, it is fallacious to suggest that a prodigy does not practice, they certainly do. </p>
<p>My answer: nonchalant - having an air of easy unconcern or indifference
Argument: She knew that the girl practiced, even though she pretended otherwise. Thus, it wasn’t really a surprise when she walked by, and heard Chopin.</p>
<p>Counterargument: Make one.</p>
<p>guys
i had a passage about Disney world…
could it be an experimental?</p>
<p>i changed from insincere sentiments to soemthing else not inflated so i guess im far out ugh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes that was experimental.</p>
<p>Well, I put old vocabulary instead of either inflated style or insincere sentiment.</p>
<p>The sentence basically said: I don’t like it because it is too oratorical and doesn’t reflect the way Black people talk. </p>
<p>Oratory = Oration = Words
Black People - Innaccurate Language </p>
<p>Inflated style by my interpretation means pompous or bombastic. Is this implied? I don’t think so</p>
<p>Insincerity - Is this implied? I don’t think so. Inaccuracy not insincerity.</p>
<p>Counterargument: What does surprise have anything to do with “having an air of easy unconcern or indifference”. By the way, notice the key word OR in the definition of disdainfully. There may have not been anything disdainful about it but it was clearly “skeptically humorous” (well maybe not but CB prolly has a low sense of humor and so they think its humorous).</p>
<p>^ In context, theyre the same thing.</p>
<p>For the lousiana question:
a)inflated language
b)insincere sentiment
c)old vocabulary</p>
<p>What did everyone put? I put old vocab.</p>
<p>Anyone remember what the question for idealized/steadfast was?</p>
<p>well he reacted to the “As I walked by her house, I could hear Chopin flying off her fingers. A real prodigy.” So that kinda contradicts indifference or unconcern. </p>
<p>and to the louisiana question i put inflated.</p>
<p>^querty2000</p>
<p>how does the author view chemistry?</p>
<p>i put idealized.</p>
<p>It was without a doubt “idealized”</p>
<h2>Counterargument: What does surprise have anything to do with “having an air of easy unconcern or indifference”. By the way, notice the key word OR in the definition of disdainfully. There may have not been anything disdainful about it but it was clearly “skeptically humorous” (well maybe not but CB prolly has a low sense of humor and so they think its humorous).</h2>
<p>Ok, saying that she plays Chopin well - I’d be skeptical that it is skeptical humor. Clearly not disdain (they were friends). </p>
<p>A real prodigy - Ok, possibly. Skeptical depending on interpretation (maybe slightly humorous if your 70). Had this been the only line to analyze, sardonic might have been an answer. But it’s really hard for me to interpret this as disdain or skepticism - there was no direct implication that her friend was BAD at piano - in fact, all statements suggest that she was probably good at it. Practicing is not mutually exclusive with prodigy, and I think a lot of people are hung up on that. </p>
<p>Nonchalant: It made really no difference that she was playing Chopin. This was to be expected - the narrator knew her friend well, and knew that she practiced a lot, loved piano, and the implications suggest that she was actually good at it.</p>