<p>“Colleges will use your class rank, your school’s average test scores, your test scores, your grades, and the grades of other applicants from your school to better understand what your grades mean in the context of your school.”</p>
<p>Silverturtle, does this truly apply for standardized test scores? For example, if I am the only person in my class with a 2300-2350+, the next closest person is a 2250, and everyone else is in the 1900-2000 range, are my chances significantly improved? (As far as GPA is concerned, I am in the top 8% with a 3.81 UW)</p>
Right, I knew that, I didn’t know what it was called. But it serves as if it were a pronoun, a one-word substitute for a previously announced noun-phrase.</p>
<p>
No but definition 1 of explanation, which takes “of,” is one of “description or explication.” That the scientists moved to describe or explicate the phenomenon cannot be eliminated. In that sense, the scientists already know what the phenomenon is, yes, but their explanation might not just restate what the phenomenon is (as phenomenon does for “arrival of swallows”); it might describe or explicate it.</p>
<p>
The sections you bolded discuss “searching” and not “explanation.” You asserted that “searching” could have only meant that they were looking for a pre-made explanation; they could have been searching for support the to-be-formed explanation of their own.</p>
<p>
No I’m asserting that the scientists could have been searching for descriptors of the phenomenon, which would be consistent with the usage of “of.” The search for a reason could be eliminated, but that does not leave a previously completed explanation as the only other possibility for the object of their search. What did the CB say in regard to the original intention of the sentence? That the scientists of were looking for a reason? Or that they were not looking for a previously made explanation?</p>
<p>
I said that you could have done a *better job *applying the estahblished distinction between “explanation of” and “explanation for” to the disputed question. The flaws in the 2 paragraphs discussing the disputed question are commented on above–self-serving use of “searching” and the preclusion of a possibility of an explanation of the phenomenon beyond the mere restating of the arrival of the swallows.</p>
<p>Since there is more, I’d like to see more of it if possible. It should be clear that I agree with you on the reasons why “for” would’ve been better, but the two paragraphs you’ve shared thus far contain flaws.</p>
<p>No, your chances will not be significantly improved. Although scores may be considered in context to a small extent, I said that those factors contribute to the context of one’s grades.</p>
<p>No. You are not considering the original sentence. “searching for an explanation” can never mean that they wanted to explicate; you’re disregarding “searching.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. “searching for” cannot mean “searching for support.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t make any sense. Why would they want to find something that describes a phenomenon when they are already capable of describing it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They said that the intention was indeed to convey that the scientists were searching for a reason for the phenomenon. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the sentence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There could certainly be flaws in the paragraphs, but you haven’t correctly pointed any out as far as I can tell. I can email you the document if you want.</p>
Why? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I really don’t see why “searching for support” can never be the case. Def 1b. says that it can be used to mean “the act of describing or explicating.”
How do you know they’re already capable of describing it? They know what it is, but the sentence does not say or imply that they are already capable of describing it.</p>
<p>I fail to see how “searching for an explanation of the phenomenon” can mean “searching for support for an explanation of the phenomenon.” You’re just adding meaning that isn’t there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The sentence communicates that the scientists are fascinated by the phenomenon and defines what the phenomenon is. If I say “Bob really wanted to eat that sandwich,” the only reasonable interpretation is that Bob knows that it is a sandwich and thus does not need to search for someone’s telling him that it is a sandwich.</p>
I inserted that in an edit to post 810. “searching for an explanation of the phenomenon” could, in accordance with 1b., mean searching for something that would describe or explicate the phenomenon.</p>
<p>
Right but that’s not what an explanation is. An explanation does not merely restate that which is to be explained, but rather is either 1. description or explication or 2. justification.</p>
<p>I think you have indeed misunderstood what I am trying to communicate here: I’m not arguing that the scientists definitely wanted to search for description or explication, but rather that the process by which you eliminated it from consideration in your paragraph describing why “the scientists were searching for justification” is the only possible interpretation is flawed.</p>
<p>You know, both stances make sense. Plus, ‘explanation of the phenomenon’ sounds fine on its own, it’s just when you put it into the sentence that it sounds wrong. I’m doing this purely by ear, though, so I guess I’m not the best judge.
This may be way off base, but upon further though, doesn’t it have something to do with the object of the verb or the type of verb or something?
For example, you can say “Solve the question.” You can’t say “Vibrate the pendulum.” The former translates into “solution to/for the question” and the latter “vibration of the pendulum” - there’s no way you’d say vibration for/to the pendulum. Explain and solve are of the former type, most verbs are of the latter. Again I’m just guessing so feel free to find examples that enforce/refute this.</p>
<p>In order to calculate your raw score, subtract .25*(the number of questions wrong, not omitted) from the number of questions correct and then use a conversion chart for the scaled score.</p>
<p>It could mean that, but this is not what you said. You said that it could mean that they were searching for support for their explanation for the phenomenon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand your intention, but I have yet to see a flaw in the method. Logically, they could not be looking for an explanation in senses 1a or 1b. I demonstrated this by citing the context of the phrase.</p>
<p>However, the steps (the process by which) you took to demonstrate the illogicality of the application of either 1a. or 1b. was flawed. You just admitted that
Merely stating that a statement cannot be logically correct is insufficient for the purposes of proving its illogicality.</p>
<p>Indeed, good thing that I didn’t do that. What you just quoted was from this thread, not my petition. Please respond to this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven’t acknowledged the contradiction there. Also, please specifically indicate in what ways my process was flawed. You are being quite vague.</p>
I did do that in the post above your most recent one, but it may have been lost because CC doesn’t show whom one is quoting.</p>
<p>One of my quotes:
</p>
<p>
It’s flawed in this way: you eliminated the possibility that the scientists were searching for description or explication without actually proving why that cannot be the case.</p>
<p>While “It could mean that” is from this thread, it is not found in what you have shared thus far of your petition. There it is: the exclusion of an alternative possibility.</p>
<p>so if I got 2 wrong on the writing portion of the PSAT I would get a 74 instead of 80 (according to one of the PSAT’s curves)? So what about the penalty you talk about at the beginning?</p>