<p>
</p>
<p>There is an illogical comparison between weather and California.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(E). (A) results in an illogical comparison.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(B). On some level, there is a contradiction between the fact that the official language is French and the fact that Togo is independent of France.</p>
<p>you got them correct, but here’s my logic:
in the sentence 1, the underlined parts were “is” “some parts of” “despite this” “there are”
2) What if the phrase’s abbreviated? Infants have demonstrated that they are capable of attaching to fathers “in very much the same way as [they are capable of attaching to their] mothers”
3) Therefore sounds fine to me… But I guess b was more correct</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sentence is ambiguous. It could mean what the correct answer says, or it could mean this:</p>
<p> Infants have demonstrated that they are capable of attaching to fathers in very much the same way as mothers are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Therefore” is not just “less correct” than the other choice; it is illogical. “Therefore” means that the official language is French because Togo gained its independence. That does not make sense.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, do you still have the question you got wrong on the PSAT for the writing section where you didn’t agree with the actual answer? I just want to see the question.</p>
<p>^It was this one</p>
<p>The [arrival of] swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring [fascinates] scientists, who [continue to] search for [an explanation of the] phenomenon. No error</p>
<p>^ was it no error? o.o</p>
<p>^Yes, but there was a debate over “explanation of”- many, including silverturtle, thought it should be “explanation for”.</p>
<p>^Yes. Silverturtle, I and many others thought the answer should have been D: “an explanation of the”. It was just a bad question.</p>
<p>Ah, I was also contemplating that when I chose the answer but I thought ‘explanation of’ fit the context, wasn’t sure though.</p>
<p>Did they end up accepting both answers after silverturtle sent that letter?</p>
<p>^unfortunately, an 18 page petition wasn’t enough</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they shot me down. The letter made it clear that they had misinterpreted my argument and seemed to imply that they had not read the entirety of my petition (they said “We gather that you are essentially asserting…”).</p>
<p>How can they misinterpret your argument if you wrote 18 pages, especially with the way you write?
That more than anything seems to make it clear that they didn’t read the whole thing :)</p>
<p>Mind if I ask what the question was?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The question that I petitioned? Vince011 has it correct in post #788.</p>
<p>Did you actually write an 18 page petition…? Or is that just an exaggeration?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Slight exaggeration: it’s just over seventeen pages. But a lot of it is citation.</p>
<p>
Had I had the test, I would’ve chosen D as well - with the correct form being ‘explanation for’.
Did they even bother explaining why ‘explanation of’ is correct?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They said that when you change a transitive verb into a noun, the direct object is in a prepositional phrase that begins with “of.” So “explain the phenomenon” would go to “explanation of the phenomenon,” and “eat the taco” would go to “eating of the taco.” </p>
<p>But I presented considerable evidence that while this is indeed the general practice, there are additional considerations that must be made for “explanation for” and that these considerations manifest consisently in every dictionary’s example sentences for the word. Consider, too, how common usage does not observe that rule for “solve”: we doesn’t usually turn “solve the question” into “solution of the question”; we say “solution to the question” or “solution for the question.”</p>
<p>Here is an early section in the guide (excuse the poorly translated formatting):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
I was reading this sentence and was like wow another one of silverturtle’s great sentences and then I saw we doesn’t and was like waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa</p>
<p>anyway
Here’s the distinction that you set out to prove in IV:
I agree with all the examples that you offered to support the distinction (especially those of the College Board itself, heheheh). However, I thought that this paragraph
</p>
<p>was somewhat weak in advancing your petition. For one, that “the independent clause already estahblishes what the phenomenon is” does not necessarily eliminate the possibility that an elucidating statement could follow thereafter. I don’t know the exact name of the part of speech that “phenomenon” is acting as, but it seems to me that it is acting as a “pronoun”; that is, every instance of “arrival of swallows” after the first one could be replaced by “phenomenon” were the paragraph extended.
Similarly, if photosynthesis had been previously mentioned and “mechanism” substituted in for “photosynthesis” in the following sentence, it would still be “an explanation of the [mechanism]”
“proposal” for an already-introduced health-care proposal:
</p>
<p>And then, what about googledict’s #3?</p>
<p>
“searching for an explanation” sounds pretty funky, and, taken in isolation, could very well mean that they were searching for a pre-made explanation. However, the CB could have countered that “searching” meant “[looking for]/[attempting to make] relevant observations.” As you pointed out, context plays a big role in determining the meaning of a particular word, or phrase, and so on.</p>
<p>
That’s a generalization; scientists could be searching textbooks or published essays for others’ completed explanations of something. Again, the effectiveness of that sentence hinges on the veracity of the the preceding sentence’s statement of “searching” being exclusively applied to “for others’ explanations” and not “for evidence for developing the scientists’ own explanation.”</p>
<p>
That would be your interpretation and the CB could easily dismiss that portion by asserting its original intentions.</p>
<p>The overall point you made and the supporting evidence you provided were sound; I just thought that you could have done a better job of tying it together as it applied to that one CB question. You mentioned that the above is an early portion; is there more to it?</p>
<p>CB probably didn’t reject your petition on the grounds of ineffectiveness; more likely, the administrative costs for reversing the scores of every taker who had bubbled D or E may have been more than what they would have been comfortable with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Woops.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(“phenomenon” is not a pronoun; it’s a noun.) I think that you have misunderstood me. I was saying that the scientists would not be trying to figure about what the phenomenon is if they already knew what is, as is established in the beginning of the sentence. If we accept my definitions, using “of” would illogically result in:</p>
<p>The arrival of swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring fascinates scientists, who continue to search for a description of the phenomenon.</p>
<p>They already know what the phenomenon is: the arrival of swallows on the same day each spring. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where are you getting those those meanings from? Those are not consistent with any of the senses of “explanation.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you asserting that it is more likely that the scientists were searching for a previously completed description of the phenomenon than it is that they are searching for a reason that the phenomenon occurs? I’m not understanding you clearly. The College Board agreed with me on the intended meaning of the sentence, as would any reasonable person considering context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What did I discuss that was not tied in to the disputed question?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that was merely four and a half pages.</p>