<p>beats me
all 3 of my posts in this thread can be found in the last 2 pages of this thread.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, I am sorry if I missed this in your guide, but what is your position on memorizing SAT vocabulary? If it is pro, then how many words max/min should be memorized by your suggestion?</p>
<p>kingsize, </p>
<p>I’ll just let my little story in post #616 speak for itself. I believe that it is sufficiently analogous and logical in itself to prove the logicality of my claim; likewise, I do not believe that I have changed my thesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I scored 2400 during my junior year. I also took the SAT in my freshman year and received 2270 (740/790/740) with no preparation, so I unfortunately don’t have any dramatic improvement stories to offer. :)</p>
<p>Along those lines, though, there is one 2400-scoring CCer (monstor344) who improved significantly on his way to 2400, so the first score is not very closely indicative for some people. Effective preparation can facilitate the manifestation of this otherwise concealed ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ll find my thoughts on this at the end of post #8.</p>
<p>with a kingsize logical statement kind of flavor:</p>
<p>Perfectly fine use of this thread as a discussion forum cannot have logical subdivisions that are not perfectly fine; one instance of an inappropriate extension of the general statement provides an exception that knocks use from “always fine in every way” down to “fine in most cases,” stripping “fine” of “perfectly.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that I addressed this issue in my previous response (post #615).</p>
<p>
Right and I responded in a rather lengthy post 622. The response to post 615 was sandwiched between my responses to kingsize, so you may have missed it.</p>
<p>To maintain that statements set forth in 615 are correct without consideration for subsequent arguments made by the opposition would constitute the logical fallacy of dogmatism.</p>
<p>–End kingsize impersonation–</p>
<p>See, normally I wouldn’t really care. However, in the discussion about punctilious and whether it denotatively suggests careful “to an extreme degree,” you asserted that it does not without considering the denotations of “punctilious” and “extreme.” I thought that was a little unfair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I read your responses. You are simply offering an opposing viewpoint. It comes down to stylistic preference on the breadth of the implication of a modifier, so I can’t argue with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you quote some of my posts on this? I don’t remember very well what I said and the search function is failing me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Authorities of grammatical conventions offer opposing viewpoints frequently, with one viewpoint winning out most of the time. If an originalist viewpoint is adopted and “in most cases” and “rarely (but not never)” fall outside of a modifier’s breadth, then use of the modifier to mean “in most cases” and “rarely” would be incorrect–leaving stylistic preference as the only reason justifying the incorrect use. </p>
<p>However, writers who cite stylistic preference do not deny that their use is incorrect, but merely that incorrect use serves to advance a legitimate goal in writing. Personality (i.e., effectiveness of style) is one of a few. Is that what you were aiming for?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I believe that our difference in interpretation lies in a fundamental and unreconcilable difference in our thoughts on the function of a noun’s modifier. This comes back to my earlier point:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I clicked your name and then find more posts, expecting to find it soon since the point about punctilious was made fairly recently. I had to go to the 9th page… no wonder you can’t remember what you said very well</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/967695-ill-take-your-hardest-sat-questions-3.html#post1065314393[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/967695-ill-take-your-hardest-sat-questions-3.html#post1065314393</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Denotatively, punctilious includes extreme.
Extreme, whether it’s the noun or the adjective describing circumstances in situations the noun names, cannot be intensified. Note that that’s not the same as “can[not] be modified adverbially.” For example, one can be wrongly punctilious but not overly punctilious.</p>
<p>Can you explain why the difference in our viewpoints regarding “perfectly” is unreconcilable if it indeed lies on a fundamental function? Fundamentally, words are one way or the other (i.e., there are correct uses and incorrect uses.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drawing inspiration from the Cretan Liar paradox indirectly referred to by kingsize, I offer the following:</p>
<p>S1. All dogs are fast.
If that statement is “always fine(in the sense of true) in every way,” then we cannot say
S2. Polka-dotted dogs are slow.</p>
<p>Polka-dotted dogs are still dogs, just as inappropriate discussion of obscenity is still discussion.</p>
<p>Tell me if I’m not making any sense.</p>
<p>Haha nice guide. Very useful at some parts, and the best thing is… its free! =)</p>
<p>Thank you for finding that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have found dictionaries that list senses in which “punctilious” is not extreme. For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(From Collins English Dictionary)</p>
<p>
[Punctilious</a> | Define Punctilious at Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punctilious]Punctilious”>PUNCTILIOUS Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com)</p>
<p>It’s the only definition on dictionary.com.</p>
<p>Like I said, other definitions may have been derived from the original one through time and lack of challenges thereto.</p>
<p>Punctilio is, as I’m sure you’re aware, the observance of minute formalities, and minute means infinitesimal. Even without the modifier “extremely,” punctilious would still be an absolute adjective etymologically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The best way I can think of conveying my mentality is thus:</p>
<ul>
<li>S1: All discussions are appropriate.
S2: A discussion about salamanders’ diets is appropriate.</li>
</ul>
<p>If S1 is true, S2 must be true. I agree. </p>
<ul>
<li>S1: Discussion is appropriate.
S2: A discussion about salamanders’ diets is appropriate.</li>
</ul>
<p>If S1 is true, S2 must be true. I disagree.</p>
<p>The mass-noun version of “discussion” carries a different implication for me than does the count-noun version of “discussion”; this difference manifests relevantly in our concepts of the meaning of a modifier to that word.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I found a definition in a reliable dictionary that did not reference anything that led me to conclude that “punctilious” is necessarily an absolute adjective, I saw no problem in modifying it in that way. I stand by this, though in some senses (those comprising “extreme” or something of similar semantic implication) such modification would indeed be ungrammatical.</p>
<p>I confess, however, that had I not checked a dictionary, I would have supported your interpretation of “punctilious.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you on the overall point you’re making. However, you left out “perfectly,” the true subject of our “debate.”
Injected into the S1 above, “perfectly” would make S1 say: “discussion is always appropriate in every way.”</p>
<p>S2, containing a particular that’s a subdivision of the general group introduced in S1, must then be true.</p>
<p>Yes, I should have made it more closely resemble our situation:</p>
<p>S1: Discussion is absolutely appropriate.
S2: A discussion about salamanders’ diets is appropriate.</p>
<p>If S1 is true, S2 must be true. I disagree. Or if you wish me to take it one step further (this, of course, sounds less logical, but I stand by the principle):</p>
<p>S1: Discussion is always appropriate in every way.
S2: A discussion about salamanders’ diets is appropriate.</p>
<p>If S1 is true, S2 must be true. I disagree.</p>