Silverturtle's Guide to SAT and Admissions Success

[silverturtle]

<p>

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>

<p>No. I have not used the CB’s agreement as evidence; you are distorting my argument.</p>

<p>

1a. is not necessarily eliminated from contention just because the sentence estahblishes what the phenomenon is.

</p>

<p>Actually, it 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>That is not analogous and I trust that you know why.</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>I understand what the debate is. But I still don’t understand the meaningfulness of it.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

Actually, it is

not because

That is not analogous and I trust that you know why.

It is not completely analogous in that it does not cover the other topics of the PSAT sentence, but it does serve as an example of one instance of a sentence which merely contains the definition (restatement) of a noun and yet still requires description or explication.</p>

<p>

No. I have not used the CB’s agreement as evidence; you are distorting my argument.

So with the CB’s agreement taken out, how do you know that your interpretation of the sentence is clearly correct? You set out to prove to the collegeboard why the meaning of the sentence requires “for” and not “of” as the preposition for “explanation”; however, you just assume that the meaning of the sentence is indeed the correct statement.</p>

<p>Begging the question, no?</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

Begging the question, no?

</p>

<p>No, as explained in post #842. You have not successfully refuted the support there (your attempted analogy is clearly irrelevant ).</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

No, as explained in post #842.

Post 842 doesn’t offer an apologia for

how do you know that your interpretation of the sentence is clearly correct? You set out to prove to the collegeboard why the meaning of the sentence requires “for” and not “of” as the preposition for “explanation”; however, you just assume that the meaning of the sentence is indeed the correct statement.

Post 842’s statement of

the sentence establishes what the phenomenon is.

is refuted by my photosynthesis example which, if adapted to include searching in the sense that either John or Bob’s searching of a book or conducting of an experiment involving photosynthesis, would prove that merely establishing what a noun is does not eliminate the possibility (or need) for description or explication.</p>

<p>And note that the acts of “describing” and “explicating” can manifest themselves in “description” and “explication.” 1b is not necessarily eliminated.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

however, you just assume that the meaning of the sentence is indeed the correct statement.

</p>

<p>I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Typo somewhere?</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

however, you just assume**[d] **that [your interpretation of] meaning of the sentence is indeed the correct [one]

</p>

<p>no lol that wasn’t a typo, just the product of some wire crossings. I missed a d, used “the” for “your” and statement could have been correct originally but I changed it to be more consistent with the edited in “interpretation.”</p>

[crouch88]

<p>Silverturtle or some other informed poster, is there a comma splice in this sentence? </p>

<p>There isn’t a huge difference between Yale and Stanford though, they rank as 3 nd 4 respectively.</p>

<p>Something tells me a semicolon would have been more appropriate.</p>

[benhpark]

<p>^ Yes. Both parts of the sentence, which are divided by a comma, are dependent clauses. Therefore a semicolon is required.</p>

[goodwood8]

<p>hey silverturtle, amazing guide. I bookmarked the SAT part for a bit later and just read the bit on colleges. Really helpful. I just had one lingering question … I’ve heard that with some colleges you can apply EA and ED, for example, EA to UChicago and ED to Swarthmore ? Is it okay ?</p>

<p>Thanks so much (I dint want to flood your inbox, so i posted here)</p>

[SandwichGirl]

<p>^^</p>

<p>You use a semicolon for two independent clauses.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

There isn’t a huge difference between Yale and Stanford though, they rank as 3 nd 4 respectively.</p>

<p>Something tells me a semicolon would have been more appropriate.

</p>

<p>Yes, you need more than just a comma to connect two independent clauses. You can use a semicolon, a period, or a comma plus a conjunction.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

I’ve heard that with some colleges you can apply EA and ED, for example, EA to UChicago and ED to Swarthmore ? Is it okay ?

</p>

<p>Some schools allow their ED applicants to apply other places; some don’t. I don’t know about Swarthmore specifically, so you’ll have to ask them.</p>

<p>Although you probably already know this, it is worth mentioning that you should only apply ED to Swarthmore if it is your number one choice.</p>

[elbeeen]

<p>Silverturtle, on the common app, what if one of your EC’s doesn’t fit into the preorganzied catergory. For example: the human rights club. Would that be maybe cultural?</p>

[crouch88]

<p>

@silverturtle

Yes, you need more than just a comma to connect two independent clauses.

</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>

@silverturtle

or a comma plus a conjunction.

</p>

<p>Does a comma always have to come before a conjunction, in connecting independent clauses?</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

Does a comma always have to come before a conjunction, in connecting independent clauses?

</p>

<p>When you are using coordinating conjunctions (e.g., “and”) to connect independent clauses, you almost always need a comma. The sole exception to this occurs when the clauses are very similar to one another and are both short. But that sort of punctuation rule shows up only on the ACT. </p>

<p>When you are using a subordinating conjunction (e.g., “although” or “if”), the clause that you are subordinating is no longer an independent clause. You don’t usually have to use a comma if the subordinate clause follows the independent clause, but sometimes one is helpful for clearly distinguishing between the clauses or to help with flow. If the subordinate clause precedes the independent clause, you need a comma.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

Silverturtle, on the common app, what if one of your EC’s doesn’t fit into the preorganzied catergory. For example: the human rights club. Would that be maybe cultural?

</p>

<p>Your best bet is probably to choose “Other Club/Activity” and then specify in your own words.</p>

[goodwood8]

<p>Yea, I guess i’ll ask them and yeah I know that and am sure its my No. 1 choice … I just wanted to apply EA to U of C to get the possible benefit of applying early, getting over with it, getting to know faster and a plethora of reasons. Thanks :)</p>

[WongTongTong]

<p>

The sole exception to this occurs when the clauses are very similar to one another and are both short. But that sort of punctuation rule shows up only on the ACT.

</p>

<p>These seem to trip me up on the ACT. Can you give any examples and how you would recognize them?</p>

<p>Also, this is probably a dumb question, but what is the plural of ‘else’?</p>

[skyrifle21]

<p>^ There’s a plural form of “else”? I’ve never heard or used anything like that in my life…</p>

<p>Someone enlighten me…</p>

[WongTongTong]

<p>^ I don’t know, I was just wondering.</p>

<p>In the scenario “…and not hijack that of someone else”</p>

<p>could [that of someone else] be replaced with [someone else’s]?</p>