<p>Did you guys think the June math IIc was harder or the math IIc test in the official study guide for all subject tests?</p>
<p>Calmy8899, much easier!!!
Calmy8899, I like your punny username! :)</p>
<p>Well, it was MUCH easier than the Barron's book (and a little easier than the McGraw-Hill practice book). Their questions were just ridiculous. I think I'm gonna go kick the Barron's people in the groin right now. They had my all worried for nothing.</p>
<p>Barron's makes it harder on purpose so that the actual exam is "really easy".</p>
<p>I did a lot of practice tests from the Princeton Review and Kaplan and I found the math IIC unexpectantly easy....in fact I found it so easy that I finished the test 15 mins before time was due. Even then, I felt really uncomfortable because when something is too easy, I always feel that something must have gone wrong or that there was more to it than on the surface...ah I don't know.</p>
<p>Dragonreborn, just relax for 19 days. :)</p>
<p>the answer to the cone question was 3.2!!!!!i am 100% sure of dat. i checked by plugging in the values.</p>
<p>As far as the Math II Subject Test (and just about every other topic), its really nice we can talk about it and collaborate here. I was confident coming out of the test, but its always nice to discuss and get confirmations. :) </p>
<p>Yay to College Confidential!</p>
<p>Seriously, Barron's had me FREAKING. OUT. But when I got the test I was just like "...................are you serious."</p>
<p>damn for that cone question i also put 2.0, then i realized it was wrong and the supervisor at that exact moment said time's up. However i tried i could not manage to change my answer during the physics test. DAMNNN if i get a 790 i am going to kill myself.</p>
<p>to spiffystars and whoever else:</p>
<p>the same exact thing happened to me with the PR guide. i was so intimidated by the PR practice test that i considered not going and just studying over the summer to take it in the fall. but wow.. im glad i took it because it was sooo much easier than the practice test and i actually feel that i likely got an 800 or at least 780+.. only a couple wrong.</p>
<p>I got the matrix one and graph inverse ones wrong. :( The inverse one was common sense, too. Argh! Everything else checks out, though.</p>
<p>Did anyone use a graphing calculator? I'm wondering if it would've helped since my friends were boasting theirs but I just used my silly solar-cell scientific.</p>
<p>I had about 17 minutes remaining, all questions answered.</p>
<p>This is weird because I did TERRIBLE on the Barron's book. In fact, the tests in there were so incredibly daunting that I gave up and nearly broke down and cried in panic by question 30.</p>
<p>aced it.... couldnt be happier</p>
<p>I used a graphing calculator - TI-89. The solve feature is gold, saved me a lot of time.
But then again, I know people who took Math IIC without calculators and got 800s.</p>
<p>Heres a question no ones answered
that inverse light question with 150 and 3 meters
and is inverse by distance squared or wtever what is it at 12 meters</p>
<p>I brought a graphing calculator (84). Never used the graphing though, except for parametric - the solve function came in really handy, though.</p>
<p>for inverse distance squared of light, it's 9.375</p>
<p>equation would be I*D^2 = K and plug values to get K, then plug 12 in to solve for I</p>
<p>for one of the first few questions there was a midpoint equation question with answers
a. something
b. something
c.(4,6)
d.(-4,-6)
e. (-#, -7)
was it D?</p>
<p>Isn't the cone one 2.0? :/ I used the volume of the cone 1/3 pi r^2 h. and it asked for the height for the cone with half of volume..</p>
<p>its 3.2 for sure</p>