<p>
</p>
<p>Two wrong would result in a 2.5 deduction (2 + (.25*2)), which rounds in your favor to 2.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than pointing out how the context of the phrase renders that possibility illogical (which is what I did), how would one prove the illogicality?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That depends on how much time you spend on the passages. I was very fast at them, though: I spent about ten seconds per SC question on average (a little less for the easy ones, a little more for the hard ones). In addition, I would very quickly (3-5 seconds) reread each before moving on to the next question.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, how did you personally prepare for the essay?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wrote one practice one. That was about it. I only got a 10, though.</p>
<p>For your practice one, did you follow AcademicHacker’s guide?</p>
<p>^AcademicHacker’s guide wasn’t around at that time.</p>
<p>Yes, it was. AcademicHacker’s guide was written in the January of 2009. If I recall correctly, silverturtle scored a 2400 on the 2010 January SAT. Of course, I don’t know when silverturtle took said practice one, but I’m assuming he/she took it in the months before the 2010 January SAT.</p>
<p>No, I did not use AcademicHacker’s guide, though many people have had positive things to say about it. My main driving thoughts were to provide lots of support and to fill up the two pages.</p>
<p>^^Oh, woops recalled the date that guide was written incorrectly, never mind. :)</p>
<p>
That would be begging the question (sorry, you actually committed one)</p>
<p>If it’s impossible to prove the phrase’s illogicality, (btw, you pointed out that the context renders…, not how) maybe it’s a distinct possibility?</p>
<p>It wouldn’t matter anyway, even if he got a 12. He still got a 800.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, I just wanted to thank you for summarizing much of what I have learned on this website into such a concise, intuitive, and terse thread. =)</p>
<p>^^ @ nothingto’s post</p>
<p>Not sure about this grammar rule, but shouldn’t “a” be “an” instead, despite the fact that it’s a number???</p>
<p>Corrected sentence sounds much better: “He still got an 800.”</p>
<p>Grammatically correct???</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m pretty sure that is right.</p>
<p>antonioray, </p>
<p>I am not understanding you. I explained how (yes, how) the context renders that interpretation illogical. I fail to see a problem with that. Please share your unflawed way of achieving this or explain more specifically why my process is flawed instead of reiterating that it is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve explained why previously: you dismissed the possibility that the scientists were searching for descriptors as illogical without actually proving why it’s illogical. How does the context render the interpretation illogical? Usually, the burden of proof is on the demonstrator. I’ve never written a post on this topic in which I only reiterated that your process is flawed but nothing more; I believe I’ve always said that your dismissal of it as illogical was illogical itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re simply mistaken, as I have repeatedly pointed out by noting my use of the context in proving the illogicality. Please reread the excerpt from the petition (near the end).</p>
<p>
Hmm I don’t think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First instance of bolded (ending with fit): 1b says that description can be one method of explanation
2nd: Why is “they would logically be the people attempting to offer this explanation” the only possibility? You wrote off “searching for an explanation of anything (in the sense of 1b)” as illogical and provided explanation in “they do not search for someone’s previously completed explanation of something.” However, the last statement in the quote is not always true; people often resort to pre-made explanations in developing their own descriptions or explications. You didn’t even mention the possibility that the scientists could have wanted to describe or explicate the phenomenon.</p>
<p>Justifying “Furthermore, it is illogical that the scientists would be searching for an explanation of anything (in the sense of 1b)” with “they do not search for someone’s previously completed explanation of something” would then be begging the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I continue to disagree. Claim one: sense 1a is illogical in that sentence; support: the sentence establishes what the phenomenon is. Claim two: sense 1b is illogical in that sentence; support: scientists who are seeking information about a phenomenon (whether that information is descriptive or explanatory in sense 2) do not search for the action of explaining.</p>
<p>I cannot justify the meaningfulness of this debate. ETS itself acknowledged that the intention of the sentence was to convey that a reason for the phenomenon was being sought.</p>
<p>
We’re not debating the meaning of the sentence, I already agreed with you that the point you promulgated in your petition was correct.</p>
<p>However, our debate is about this
</p>
<p>1a. is not necessarily eliminated from contention just because the sentence estahblishes what the phenomenon is. </p>
<p>Consider: Photosynthesis is the life process by which plants generate food for themselves. John offered an explanation of photosynthesis to his student Bob.</p>
<p>In that sense, we know that photosynthesis is what it is, but nothing else. Not the manner in which is carried out, nothing. That’s when an description or explication of photosynthesis would be useful to Bob even though he knows what it is(but not with detail)</p>
<p>The PSAT question is the same. You’re arguing that the CB already agreed with you on the intended meaning (as do I), but that argument is made ex post facto. Before they sent the letter back confirming your interpretation of the sentence’s intentions, anything done by a reader/taker could only have been speculation. As such, all possibilities were still in play. You eliminated description as illogical without proving why.</p>