<p>off topic, but does the PSAT score factor in at all when deciding the finalists, besides determining the semifinalist cutoff?</p>
<p>corn are u kidding me?!?! It’s even more rediculous for form S! 80-75-70 much worse than 80-78-73-72-70! What are you looking at!?</p>
<p>oh and Dare no. After semi-finalist u right an app and about 1000 of the 12000 or so get cut.</p>
<p>somebody help me. so if i get -3 math form w then my raw score is 35? but if i get -4 will my raw score be 33?</p>
<p>Delontewest, did you omit any?</p>
<p>Making finalist is essentially all about fulfilling requirements. 15,000 of the 16,000 who are Semifinalist become Finalists.</p>
<p>no…</p>
<p>“somebody help me. so if i get -3 math form w then my raw score is 35? but if i get -4 will my raw score be 33?”</p>
<p>-3 on Math yields a raw score of 34/38. -4 yields a raw score of 33/38.</p>
<p>^^^but doesn’t minus 3 mean .75 points off??? I thought it only counted down at exactly 1 point off which would be minus 4. i’m not getting the concept</p>
<p>@silverturtle</p>
<p>were you looking for someone with a subscription to the OED?
my school has one. i haven’t read the entry for “explanation” but i copied and pasted it below in case it’s of any use to you–</p>
<p>[ad. L. explntin-em, n. of action f. explnre: see EXPLAIN.] </p>
<pre><code>1. The action or process of explaining; an instance of the same. in explanation of: for the purpose of explaining. Act of Explanation = Explanatory Act.
</code></pre>
<p>1382 WYCLIF Josh. Prol., We han demed…to sitten to the explanacioun of the prophetis. 1532 MORE Confut. Tindale Wks. 478/2 By which explanacions by mouth the people came into ye vndouted trouth. 1664 EVELYN Kal. Hort. (1729) 229, I pass to the Explanation of the following Table. 1689 LUTTRELL Brief Rel. (1857) I. 555 The…parliament…have repealed…the acts of settlement and explanation. 1729 BUTLER Serm. Wks. II. 153, I proceed to the particular explanation of the precept before us. 1767 Junius Lett. xxi. 99 A few lines in explanation of some passages in my last letter. 1848 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. I. 666 The malignity…seemed to require explanation.</p>
<pre><code>2. That which explains, makes clear, or accounts for; a method of explaining or accounting for; a statement that makes things intelligible. Also (as title), a treatise composed for the purpose of explaining.
</code></pre>
<p>a1610 HEALEY Cebes F7b, This explanation resembleth the riddle of Sphynx. 1664 H. MORE Myst. Iniq. i. 3, I have more at large discoursed in my Explanation of the Mystery of Godliness. a1715 BURNET Own Time (1734) II. 214 The ill effects that were like to follow on those different Explanations [of the Trinity]. 1791 MRS. RADCLIFFE Rom. Forest i, La Motte now asked for an explanation of the scene. 1856 SIR B. BRODIE Psychol. Inq. I. vi. 233 Facts are not to be rejected merely because the explanation offered of them proves to be erroneous. 1883 FROUDE Short Stud. IV. I. iv. 44 Vast sums were found to have been received…of which no explanation had been given.
Comb. 1716 M. DAVIES Athen. Brit. III. 46 It passes through his own Explanation-strainer.</p>
<pre><code>3. A mutual declaration of the sense of spoken words, motives of actions, etc., with a view to adjust a misunderstanding and reconcile differences; hence, a mutual understanding or reconciliation of parties who have been at variance.
</code></pre>
<p>1840 BARHAM Ingol. Leg., Spectre of Tapp., I shall come to an immediate explanation with your father on the subject.</p>
<p>woah…fresh101 did you say that #34 was NE??? and silverturtle i wholeheartedly agree with you that CB is wrong on the explanation of/for one.</p>
<p>What was the answer to “explanation of”? Was it no error? Please answer</p>
<p>^ yes, it was no error.</p>
<p>“What was the answer to “explanation of”? Was it no error? Please answer”</p>
<p>College Board says no error. As others have recently alluded to (and as I have argued to death in this thread (see earlier posts)), I disagree and think it should be “for.” I am appealing.</p>
<p>Thanks, yellowroses.</p>
<p>The entry doesn’t seem to have anything definitive. “explanation for” is not used in the entry, nor is any example phrase whose intention is clearly to offer the reason for something.</p>
<p>hey, does anyone know how to check your psat score report? i have mine from this year, but the one from last year keeps popping up whenever i try to access this year’s.</p>
<p>woah…fresh101 did you say that #34 was NE??? </p>
<p>I did.</p>
<p>Wooo!! got a 224! The scores of the other kids in the top 3% of my class are: 181, 189, 202, 204, 206, 206, 207, 207, 210, 221, 223, and 224! We’re in Nebraska, btw.</p>
<p>silverturtle, can you explain why a -3 math form w no omit results in a raw score of 34. shouldn’t it be 35 since -3 = .75 points off which isn’t whole number.</p>
<p>fresh, what did you get. I haven’t got scores yet but i’m sure you did better than me.</p>
<p>@del
u have to round</p>