<p>Guys … how was it compared to november SAT ???</p>
<p>I had 4 CR sections. I almost died in all of it. I find it pretty tough :(</p>
<p>what i wanna know is why yall in hong kong dont got no 24 hr internet cafes or rooms??</p>
<p>in fact is it just korea that has 24 hr pc rooms on every corner of the block??</p>
<p>@Satdone the shortcoming is a SC qu about a man revealing his shortcoming when he published a book with poor plots, board characters, etc.</p>
<p>I put repetition on the qn you have been discussing about.
And something about improving civic behavior on the higher education qn… Not sure if I’m right…</p>
<p>What about the math question with divisible by 3. some people say that if the both not divisible by 3 is correct while the wording says “must” so for example 5-2= 3 works but 8-7=1 doesn’t so…</p>
<p><em>Cough</em> 5*0.75=3.75 not 3.25.</p>
<p>i got 3 no errors so i dk which is the 4th you did</p>
<ol>
<li>Yeah there were 3 “no errors” in the writing section.</li>
<li>The cotton one you’re wrong. Atleast 5 dosen’t mean 5 should work. It simply means that a minimum of 5 could work. Hence 1-4 should not work. For that question, all three statements are correct. For example, 6 states would work and 6 states is at least 5.</li>
<li>Unfortunately looks like repetition was correct. Unfortunately got that wrong :(</li>
</ol>
<p>I have questions -
- (as compared to, than were, than was) in the writing section. Which one was correct? It was the question comparing one guy’s style of painting to two other people. I wrote less interested…than were…</p>
<p>btw, it was 2 points inside triangle right?</p>
<p>@SATuser123 in no way does 5 work no matter how you put it we need 4.15
0.75*5=3.75 still not enough thus it is false. however six could work.</p>
<p>I know but 5 doesn’t need to work. It clearly says at least 5. hence a minimum of 5. It doesn’t say 5 and more. 6 IS at least 5.</p>
<p>Atleast means 5 OR more. “Or” is the keyword. 5 dosen’t necessarily need to work. I’m pretty sure the answer is all three statements are correct.</p>
<p>Gyeah. I’d say ‘REPETITION’ too for all you tards who said that no word was repeated after another. It’s what you call ‘ANAPHORA,’ a rhetorical device in which a sequence of words is REPEATED at the beginning of clauses. Moreover, for those of you asserting that reasoning is correct, you most coveniently forget that the answer choice was ‘ANALOGICAL’ reasoning, a type of reasoning in which similarities are drawn between two concepts or ideas to provide an understanding of what is likely to be true rather than deductively proving something as fact. So tell me, what types of similarities did the author of passage 1 drawn upon to assert his reasonings?</p>
<p>“than were” is most certainly the correct answer as, from what I recall, two compound subjects separated by a coordinating conjunction ‘and’ followed</p>
<p>‘compared to’ would have been the most likely
other choice, but it was preceded by ‘as,’ so idiomatically, ‘as…as’ would have been correct,
not ‘as…compared to.’</p>
<p>3 no errors would most certainly be correct, as the only
point of contention would be in whether ‘for use in’ should be replaced with 'to use in,"
but as I see no problem with either, I’ll place my money on 3 NEs.</p>
<p>Thank you. I had another question.
- Close attention or child-like amusement. I put child-like amusement.
- Atypical to creator or something else?
- peremptory/ordeal or perfidious…or something else altogether?
- disconcert/furnish or the other one?</p>
<p>A shift to personal criticisms would most certainly be correct, as the heated argument between the two was imbued with personal attacks on character, and any
type of ‘reasoned’ argument would most certainly not be reasonable at
all, given that both made ‘unreasonable’ assertions as
to why each girl was sick.</p>
<p>No not that one. “the girls looked back and forth like it was a tennis match” is that child-like amusement or close attention? in the test i was confused between the two but ended up closing child-like amusement.</p>
<p>‘close attention’ would most certainly be
correct, as the majority seem to be allowing their subjective biases of what they interpret as how they would act
during a tennis match to be the
same as what is suggested in the line references. If one moves one’s head from side to side during a tennis match, one is most certainly not
just casually watching the game but paying close attention to it.</p>