<p>I put ungainly cause I thought unflappable wasn’t even a word, although now it makes sense. Silly me. 
So for the record the SAT will always have real words that you can find in the dictionary? (Seems like an obvious question.)</p>
<p>They won’t put fake words on the SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All the words in the Sentence Completions section are real words that fit grammatically, but not necessarily semantically, into the blanks.</p>
<p>I feel like progenitor was in BB? Maybe I’m thinking of a barron’s practice test. Anyway it goes to show that studying helped me on at least ONE question.</p>
<p>I didn’t know what progenitor meant but I thought of progeny and just guessed.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, can you back up my post on the previous page? It’s the last one.</p>
<p>@ sounditout: I also put “explain a problem that affected the development of the field”</p>
<p>The gist of the sentence was this: “Many people find the white Greek statues widely found in museums to be plain, YET newly discovered statues- EVEN THOUGH they have traces of bright pigments do not seem quite AS elaborate AS THE OLD ONES.”
@canbambiswim- it’s supposed to be an ironic contradiction.</p>
<p>this is my last post for a few hours… time for church :]</p>
<p>Does anyone know anymore questions from the scientist passage???</p>
<p>Scientist Passage:
Author says how scientists choose to specialize in a field of study is “no matter”
Trick means feat
Thought process distinctive to researchers
To expand on preceding generalizations
The discovery was another clue to the puzzle
Incessant</p>
<p>What was the though process distinctive to researchers questions (was it even considered a debatable question? I don’t remember it :P)</p>
<p>Also, my astronomy answers were:
astronomy influenced the development of physics
ancients were baffled because they could not predict the movements</p>
<p>
Taking the words out, we know that the first blank must be something to do with plain, so both plain and austere work.</p>
<p>Once we reach yet, we know that the second word will be an opposite of the first, BUT there is a NOT, which implies that the first and second blanks must be synonyms.</p>
<p>You can’t just assume it’s supposed to be an ironic contradiction.</p>
<p>Can someone please answer my question and confirm my answers ^^</p>
<p>
There was no even though. And your sentence makes no sense whatsoever. The new statues have traces of bright pigments, yet they aren’t as elaborate as the old white/plain statues?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is definitely “austere”/“unadorned.”</p>
<p>awesomemath–at first glance they look fine. sorry I don’t remember any other questions from the scientists passage.</p>
<p>I agree with all those answers, but I don’t really understand the “expand on generalizations”
one; I know that’s the right answer, but would the “expand” mean that the author made more generalizations? Or just developed the previous ones he/she made?</p>
<p>I took the “expand on generalizations” as to mean to elaborate on them by using the example of the mutated organisms.</p>
<p>I don’t really remember the expand on generalizations one either 
was that one debatable? other choices?</p>
<p>I believe another choice was something like “give specific examples” or something vaguely like that. I thought the author was giving a specific instance of scientists the puzzle method (which was generalized in the first paragraph).</p>
<p>oh crap i might have put that arghh
i don’t really remember anything anymore :/</p>
<p>But there was only one example.</p>
<p>The other choice which a lot of people are arguing for is to recapitulate ideas given in the first paragraph or something like that.</p>