Aw man alright. Did much better on the writer than the Trinidad.
Anyone know the answer to my question though? It was the one asking about the quote: " we could not live off one another’s literary works (or something)" and they were asking what the literary part meant.
Does anyone know if there are always 67 critical reading questions in total? Because I had four critical reading sections, with 25, 24, 23, and 19 questions. If there are always 67, then that means that the one with 24 was experimental.
Does anyone know that answer to the circle problem, with XYPQ and radius 6? I thought it was not enough info given since you dk where the points are
Idk about you guys but now idc for my sat score for some reason. Haha the waitness isn’t killing me anymore. Good sign, aye?
It was 12
@soymilk23 can u explain how on paint or something? Sorry I just can’t figure out this question
Basically P and Q always have to be on opposite points because X and Y are equidistant from both of them. Thus this makes their distance equal to the diameter: 2*6=12. If you want to visualize it, picture drawing a kite inside a circle.
@soymilk23 makes sense THANK YOU!!!
@Sat4thesat Hey I think I put “buying and selling writer’s books” I could be wrong. Is that what you put?
I think the writer was experimental because I had definitely seen it before. I think it was the same experimental I had on the December test.
Edit: It was either the writer or Pluto section because each of them had 8 sentence completion questions, and you only get one set of them per test.
The passage w 24 questions was deff the experimental one
for the linguistic passage, did anyone get an answer “unthinkable”? or is it “simplistic” or something
hi guys, for the trinidad passage do you get “destructiveness of social criticisms” for question 18 and “open control to insidious influence” for question 19? i found these 2 questions a bit confusing
i got “unthinkable”
I got the same answers @struggleforsat @ys1213
including the trinidad questions? @lastnite
yep @struggleforsat !
Was it “unthinkable”? I thought it was “deceptive” because the author of the second passage said that babies have an innate ability to learn language, not that they were born knowing language. I don’t think the author shot the other passage down, so unthinkable seems a little harsh. I may be wrong though, critical reading is my worst section.
I think it is “unthinkable”, since the question is asking how the “scholars/philosophers” in passage 1 would perceive the hypothesis in passage 2 that babies have innate language abilities. These scholars believe that the human mind is a vacuum at birth and could not possibly possess such skills. So the idea that babies have such abilities would seem unthinkable to them.
does anyone remember the air condition writing question