3 ms·
They ought to include some fake but plausible words to correct for cheaters. (Perhaps they do?)
by lliiffee 15y ago
They ought to include some fake but plausible words to correct for cheaters. (Perhaps they do?)
- jamesbritt 15y agoSome of those words had a definite brillig quality.
- rdl 15y agoYet, are rather cromulent ObScore: 36000, 32yo male US-english native speaker. There were a few more I'd seen but wasn't really sure enough to define. I maxed out the SAT verbal section (and got 1 wrong on math, which was enough to drop to 780/800) back in the 1990s.
- Silhouette 15y agoAnd yet not a slythy tove in sight, gyring or otherwise. The thing that always surprises me with this sort of test is how many words I half-know: I recognise the word, I have a (correct) general sense of what it means, but either I couldn't articulate an accurate definition or the definition I would give is an uncommon usage and I hadn't come across the more common meaning(s). Following the rules strictly (so I didn't tick the half-known words), I came in slightly below average for my age, assuming the trend continues beyond the 32 years that their table currently gives. For comparison, if I also included the words I half-knew, I gained nearly 4,000 new words and went up about 20%.