<p>The last question on the science had to do with exp. 1 and 2 of the dialysis tube experiment and whether or not the starch would move at all. I put that it wouldn’t move at all because it was too big, but I ran out of time and couldnt check the passage-just went with what i remembered from AP Bio… was i right???</p>
<p>What was the last passage about? It’s really bugging me now.</p>
<p>i thought the reading prose passage was easy!
the tubman one was confusing.</p>
<p>heres what i think</p>
<p>english: 34-35 (i was only bothered by one question)
math: 34-35 (i only didnt know how to do one)
reading: 26-28 (i did poorly. i ran out of time)
science: 27-29 (i didnt get the last passage done. but the biology reference stuff?!? what the h)</p>
<p>what about his english question that bothered me:</p>
<p>“In our time, he probably would have (became, become)”
^that confused me</p>
<p>"dude.</p>
<p>(almost all) colleges don’t superscore the act.</p>
<p>It’s 1 complete test date or nothing, ya kno that?"</p>
<p>yeah i know that.. i’ll send in the 34 // 7 with my 33 // 10+ (if i get that.. if i get the 34 then i’ll just send in that) and show them that i can write.. and a 33 and a 34 aren’t too much different.. it’s not a superscore.. i’ll just send them both to show that the writing was a fluke</p>
<p>I think Upgrading was the least appropriate</p>
<p>soreal- yeah i put that 99percent sure thats right
gymfreak - i believe upgrading B is right</p>
<p>would have become is it</p>
<p>would have became is not grammatically correct</p>
<p>and i HATED the writing prompt. the april one was so much easier. there were too many implications that it seemed hard to express myself fully. like “what different types of “harmful” products, do they harm mentally or physically, different products can harm different people.”
it was just so broad i found it hard to concentrate and form an argument</p>
<p>was it “in today’s world” or “in todays world”?</p>
<p>YES!
i put “would have become”</p>
<p>im extremely mad about the become one, i had thats answer and i changed it and then i rethought it and wanted to change it back but i ran out of time.</p>
<p>i used the argument that everything has a potential harm (i used children’s toys as examples.. like the “small parts – choking hazard” thing) and the thing about cigarette advertisements not being able to be on TV.. and people still buy them.. so it’s the consumer that is responsible for controlling the potential hazards, not lawmakers limiting the ability to promote your products, “potentially” harmful or not</p>
<p>KMZ.
you are right.
it was the answer with 2 and 8 in it. i got a little scared about that one also but figured it out</p>
<p>i’m hoping i got at least a 9 on my writing.. some of my sentences were a little awkwardly stated, but my point was made clear.. and i used two examples/theories and one counter-example that i immediately responded to with my final rebuttal that supported my claim that lawmakers should not limit advertisements</p>
<p>To KmZ: "Anyone remember the problem in the Math section:</p>
<p>2x/(x^2 - 25) + 2x/(5 - x)</p>
<p>I think I got something like -2x^2 - 8/(x^2 - 25). I remember it involved a 2 and 8."</p>
<p>The answer was the second choice, g i think.</p>
<p>i said they should be able to advertise harmful products because.. its the consumers choice, constitutional right to advertise (?), but then i qualified and argued that the location had to be appropriate (like no cigs on tv)</p>
<p>What was the answer to the question w/ the choices: improve, upgrade, stimulate?</p>
<p>“I think I got something like -2x^2 - 8/(x^2 - 25). I remember it involved a 2 and 8.”</p>
<p>that’s the right answer</p>
<p>thats exactly what i wrote about peytoncline. i wrote about disclaimers and how it would be wrong for companies to sell mentally harmful things such as adult magazines in places that are visited by young people and thats where lawmakers should make a stand. im kinda scared about it though. i wrote well, but i dont know if i focused well enough</p>
<p>The answer to you akittka was in today’s world. I think that’s right because todays wouldn’t be plural. I don’t really know how to explain it though.</p>