4 ms·

The answers are so ungrammatical and mystifying that it almost seems like the designers were trying to kill the test on purpose. The "correct" answer is this:

The answers are so ungrammatical and mystifying that it almost seems like the designers were trying to kill the test on purpose. The "correct" answer is this: The predicted height increase in centimeters for one centimeter increase in the first metacarpal bone ...as far as I can tell, the answer written for sentient humans would be something like: As the length of the metacarpal bone increases, so does height. But my translation is so obvious that I sat there for five minutes wondering if I was looking at some kind of otherworldly trick question. Nope. They just made a wretched problem. Obviously, the original SAT was an IQ test (as the article says) that allowed poor but smart kids from poor schools to get into college. But that process is self-defeating, as poor areas have all their smartest people leave for everything from state schools to Harvard. As inequality becomes more rigid groups like the College Board are flailing and improvising.

Chinjut 12y ago
Your translation does not capture what they are saying. They are asking what quantity the slope of the line (as in, rise over run) corresponds to. The answer should be a noun phrase describing some numerical quantity, not a sentence describing a true or false fact about the world.
nilkn 12y ago
I think their answer is perfectly sensible and perfectly grammatical. It's also clearly correct according to even the most basic notion of slope as rise over run. I honestly don't see the issue with this question. Not only does your answer not fit grammatically, but it's also less precise.
- comex 12y ago
  When I skimmed the list of answers, they also looked wrong to me, but this is because I saw the answers (which start at the top of the page) before the question (which is at the bottom). Because the answers started with capital letters, I initially read them expecting a full sentence, mentally replacing "increase" with "increases": "The predicted height increases in centimeters for one centimeter increase in the first metacarpal bone." (True, although the height also increases in any other unit for any amount of increase in the bone.) "The predicted first metacarpal bone increases in centimeters for every centimeter increase in height." (Ditto, but this looks more correct because it has it increasing for every/any centimeter increase in height, rather than specifically one.) Judging by the parent comment, I think they may have done the same, but failed to notice the correct interpretation? In any case, while as a native speaker, I only saw it that way for a few seconds, I can certainly imagine that someone speaking English as a second language could be thrown off. The answers also do have odd wording - they refer to the bone itself "increasing", rather than its length, and the first answer's "for one centimeter increase" could be interpreted as either "for (one centimeter) increase", which lacks an article, or "for one (centimeter increase)", which is not ambiguous but not proper terminology either. I think the design could be improved - first by avoiding the weird inverted question/answer position if at all possible, second by avoiding capital letters, third by using easier to parse wording: "the predicted increase in height, in centimeters, for every one centimeter increase in the length of the first metacarpal bone"

Chinjut 12y ago

Your translation does not capture what they are saying. They are asking what quantity the slope of the line (as in, rise over run) corresponds to. The answer should be a noun phrase describing some numerical quantity, not a sentence describing a true or false fact about the world.

nilkn 12y ago

I think their answer is perfectly sensible and perfectly grammatical. It's also clearly correct according to even the most basic notion of slope as rise over run. I honestly don't see the issue with this question. Not only does your answer not fit grammatically, but it's also less precise.

comex 12y ago
When I skimmed the list of answers, they also looked wrong to me, but this is because I saw the answers (which start at the top of the page) before the question (which is at the bottom). Because the answers started with capital letters, I initially read them expecting a full sentence, mentally replacing "increase" with "increases": "The predicted height increases in centimeters for one centimeter increase in the first metacarpal bone." (True, although the height also increases in any other unit for any amount of increase in the bone.) "The predicted first metacarpal bone increases in centimeters for every centimeter increase in height." (Ditto, but this looks more correct because it has it increasing for every/any centimeter increase in height, rather than specifically one.) Judging by the parent comment, I think they may have done the same, but failed to notice the correct interpretation? In any case, while as a native speaker, I only saw it that way for a few seconds, I can certainly imagine that someone speaking English as a second language could be thrown off. The answers also do have odd wording - they refer to the bone itself "increasing", rather than its length, and the first answer's "for one centimeter increase" could be interpreted as either "for (one centimeter) increase", which lacks an article, or "for one (centimeter increase)", which is not ambiguous but not proper terminology either. I think the design could be improved - first by avoiding the weird inverted question/answer position if at all possible, second by avoiding capital letters, third by using easier to parse wording: "the predicted increase in height, in centimeters, for every one centimeter increase in the length of the first metacarpal bone"