<p>i put maintain for what does hold mean in the sentence</p>
<p>hold was not “grasp”</p>
<p>it was something else</p>
<p>it was maintain.</p>
<p>I also said she suddenly realized the importance of family</p>
<p>Please be maintain…</p>
<p>maybe it wasn’t hold… but i put the answer grasp for something…</p>
<p>justification for “maintain”?</p>
<p>because the line in context was something like “to catch and continue to hold the peoples attention”
grasp would be repetitive and wouldn’t really fit the context</p>
<p>wouldn’t maintain be repetitive? continue to maintain?</p>
<p>*** was the lumpy one?</p>
<p>conspicuous seemed to be the only one that made remote sense… but even then i didn’t like that choice.</p>
<p>“i dont think the reporter believed me” was the opinion of the author. but based on the context of the passage as a WHOLE, wouldnt you think its a frank statement if you were the reporter. of course the guy’s crazy. Remember in the CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE means you must consider all of it not just that line. </p>
<p>any counterarguments?</p>
<p>God I hated this SAT crit reading…it was bs. What would -10 look like? I’ll be happy if I break 650…BLAHHH!</p>
<p>If I was the reporter I would not think that the archaeologist was crazy. Any reporter would know that she was just being hard to deal with and flippant.</p>
<p>i think the diffident haughty question was so incredibly stupid. in the first part of the sentence she says “i’m not sure if that’s what the reporter wanted” (I’m sure of this) but then it says she enjoyed her self. so one could take it as she is lacking confidence (diffident) or she is doing it to mock the reporter (haughty). it referred to the sentence as a whole, the choices sucked</p>
<p>Just because you yell counterexample doesn’t mean you are right.</p>
<p>yettiddqq8,</p>
<p>Yes, counterargument is that you are going way too deep. Secondly, SAT does not to “passage-as-a-whole” type questions, unless it literally asks so. When line numbers are given, you are to use only those line numbers and perhaps 1-2 sentences in context. This is what separates the ACT from the SAT. </p>
<p>If the narrator says that she doesn’t think the person believed her, it means one of two things.</p>
<ol>
<li>The person really didn’t</li>
<li>The narrator said things in a manner that weren’t believable.</li>
</ol>
<p>The SAT cannot reasonably expect you to infer that the statement was frank, based on the fragile argument of your opinion, that she really did seem crazy.</p>
<p>that one question about what the author of the first celebrity passage would think if a person were to be completely “non-celebrity” like the one referred to in the second passage?</p>
<p>was it refusing to succumb to the public’s expectations, or whatever?</p>
<p>I put grasp - You can grasp attention, but if direct substitution is correct, here’s why maintain is wrong.</p>
<p>You maintain attention means something different. It means that you are keeping your own attentiveness in check. Plus, that’s a really awkward substitution…</p>
<p>Word in context is rarely similar definitions.</p>
<p>Hold and Grasp are too similar.</p>
<p>ok but remember the question dealt with the CONTEXT as a whole. It referred to the line “Im just crazy” but never did the line refer to the part about what the reporter said afterwards. yes that could also be used as evidence but as a whole that what I retrieve from the passage is that he is crazy. people who don’t follow conventional standards are by normal definitions crazy. Him not talking about treasures and talking about the negative aspects is “crazy” just like a guy who jumps out a building for no reason. and besides some ways the SAT does test opinion and inference. like many of the tone questions we have encountered on this test. there doesn’t seem to be one universal answer. and each person, based on his opinion based on the evidence in the text justified their answer.</p>