June 4 2011 SAT Reasoning Post-Test Discussion

<p>The June SAT I is over!
Reactions, Thoughts, Expectations?</p>

<p>Questions/Clarification with any of the CR, M, or W problems? (including the essay).</p>

<p>Let's discuss!! :)</p>

<p>Does anyone remember the majority of the answers from the fill-in section of the math?</p>

<p>The one with finding n had multiple answers I believe, I put 20, so I think they both were right. I also got 1600 and 11/2 for two others. I think I had 15 as an answer for one of them, as well?</p>

<p>what was the answer to the question about land-leases and the percentage in april?</p>

<p>I put 10% for that one</p>

<p>Was feeling an 800 until I got to the question about subsets. I had no idea what they were.</p>

<p>and yeah 10% for that one</p>

<p>yeah 10%. 20 and 16 should both work. Removing multiples of 3 leads to 67 remaining answers. 20 would further take out 20, 40, 80, and 100, yielding 63. 16 would take out 16, 32, 64, and 80.</p>

<p>Yup 10 percent.</p>

<p>subsets i got E i think which was like 4,25,50,100</p>

<p>For the subsets one, @asdfman12, I put 4,25,50,75,100 - I think it was choice E?</p>

<p>Would 19 also work for the 63 remaining answers one?</p>

<p>oh i had a question about the wind turbine thing. Would that nature guy strongly disagree with whatever assertion was made or would he agree (assertion was like that turbines could be made quieter and more appealing). I put strongly disagree or whatever answer was like that, but i wasnt sure</p>

<p>Can somebody explain this subset one. What was the question for the remaining answers one?</p>

<p>Is it just me or was the math harder than usual? and also which writing was most likely the experimental?</p>

<p>The one that was emphatic disagreement is what I put</p>

<p>I agree fidel, I think that was the answer</p>

<p>@choyphin i also got 19. im pretty sure it works.</p>

<p>the writing with preserving buildings was the real one</p>

<p>for the bees and trees one, was one of the answers about controlling nature (i wasnt sure if it was that or manipulating language for selfish reasons). Also I’m pretty sure another one was illustrating a definition although i wasnt 100% sure of that either.</p>

<p>Yes fidelgato… I think it was power/control of nature, and then they were defining “coevolution” or something.</p>