<p>i could be wrong…but</p>
<p>for the oracle one, i believe it said something along the lines of…“what does the author IMPY about the people MENTIONED in line 1”</p>
<p>imply = not literal + the next sentence/rest of passage doubted their validity…thus charlatan</p>
<p>however, i had oracle too but changed it last minute…but that was my reasoning</p>
<p>so it doesnt mean ur answer had to be based solely on what was in line 1</p>
<p>uhhh crap</p>
<p>according to my calculator, I read the question as 2/3 were taking climbing classes</p>
<p>I hope there’s a possibility we get different questions >___></p>
<p>damnit</p>
<p>Whatever the details were…</p>
<p>240
5/6 did x
2/3 did y</p>
<p>(200+80)=240+40</p>
<p>The answer was 40.</p>
<p>Some people boast of having a sixth sense, professing to know or see things that others cannot. Fortune-tellers, mind readers, and mystics top the list of those who lay claim to these mysterious powers. In so doing, they elicit widespread fascination in others, especially book publishers and television producers. The questionable field of parapsychology is founded on the belief that at least some people actually possess this talent. To me, the biggest mystery of all is why so many fortune-tellers choose to work the phones on TV psychic hotlines instead of becoming insanely wealthy futures traders on Wall Street. Apart from this inexplicable fact, the persistent failure of controlled, double-blind experiments to support the claims of parapsychology suggests that what’s going on is nonsense rather than sixth sense.</p>
<p>this was the passage for charlatan</p>
<p>but the last sentence wasnt in our sat, right?</p>
<p>yeah last sentence wasnt included</p>
<p>“boast of having a sixth sense” = falsely claiming to have a spceial skill
or “somebody or something considered to be a source of knowledge, wisdom, or prophecy” It depends on the question. Falsely claiming or charlatan seems like a much deeper interpretation as in going further. Does he really say that they are falsely claiming? I think the author doesn’t go that far, but he’s implying it in the end.</p>
<p>Hmm…O well. That’s potentially 1 or 2 wrong questions on CR. I wonder what the penalty for that will be.</p>
<p>that could still be 800.</p>
<p>Aunt Sylvie passage</p>
<p>When we did come home Sylvie would certainly be home, too, enjoying the evening, for so she described her habit of sitting in the dark. Evening was her special time of day. She gave the word three syllables, and indeed I think she liked it so well for its tendency to smooth, to soften. She seemed to dislike the disequilibrium of counterpoising a roomful of light against a worldful of darkness. Sylvie in a house was more or less like a mermaid in a ship’s cabin. She preferred it sunk in the very element it was meant to exclude.</p>
<p>Double meaning-enjoying the evening, for so she described her habit of sitting in the dark.</p>
<p>Outdoors=indoors-She preferred it sunk in the very element it was meant to exclude.</p>
<p>the outdoor/indoor thing was the mermaid metaphor, right?</p>
<p>Yep. That all tied into it.</p>
<p>okay. i put the same answer as you did. and i was pretty sure about it.</p>
<p>didnt the questions ask about line 1? cuz I remember rereading the question… I’m 90% sure it mentioned something about line 1</p>
<p>“Some people boast of having a sixth sense, professing to know or see things that others cannot.”</p>
<p>so wouldnt it be oracle?</p>
<p>this was probably mentioned already but</p>
<p>for the sailor passage…oblivious was an answer right??</p>
<p>& for the tribunal one…i know objective was the answer but did the other 1/2 of the answer have the word illuminating?</p>
<p>what book was that sailor story come from?
title of the novel?</p>
<p>yes I got oblivious for the sailor one</p>
<p>what was that question again?</p>
<p>For the oracle/charlatan debacle:</p>
<p>The overall tone of the author is mocking and sardonic from the start, thereby confirming the implication of the author that these supposed “oracles” are, in fact, “charlatans.” The author then goes on by saying that if these charlatans were really legitimate oracles capable of predicting the future, they should pursue a career in the stock market, in the very element they supposedly exceled in: predicting the future. Since the stock market depends on a lot of luck and chance, a “true” fortune teller would make millions, because he/she would accurately predict which stocks are profitable, and which are not. The last sentence ties in very nicely to the author’s sardonic and sarcastic tone.</p>
<p>Therefore, the answers should be charlatan, and sardonic.</p>