<p>does anyone remember the question exactly? i just want to make sure its scavenge sry</p>
<p>so confused. so is it scavenge or aggregate? doubting myself… I personally put scavenge.</p>
<p>from past experience, what are you guys thinking the curve is going to be like? -3 800?</p>
<p>@pro
I said scavenge and so did a few others
nik, shim, and sat master said aggregate.</p>
<p>It was like the 3rd question on the vocab section, so I am 99% sure I got it right. I can attest that this is the only contested answer in the thread that I am 99% sure I got right. The other ones I am 50/50.</p>
<p>@francesca
-3 POINTS, not Wrong = 800
Just from looking at past curves and my last test.</p>
<p>@anna</p>
<p>Different</p>
<p>It’s nice to discuss test questions, since I am dying to know if I got something wrong as well----however, aren’t some people still going to be taking it tomorrow (Sunday)? Apparently, due to religious reasons. I don’t know if its true. But, if that is the case then, do they use a slightly different test—or the same?</p>
<p>@drac and pro - yeah im starting to think it might be scavenge. but it depends completely on the exact wording of the question. if anyone remembers it it would be great!</p>
<p>Hmm…I think I could get -2, mayybe -3? 
Oh, and some things: About the sinister/vital one, if you actually look up vital, it ALSO means full of life and vigor, not just its main meaning of important or fundamental. The passage has no sinister tinge to it at all, hence it should be sinister. </p>
<p>Alsooo, about the qualification/undertaking/argue against a change… I really do not recall right, and I’m kinda new too…don’t flame me! But um I do remember that the author was never arguing against a change- the electoral passage was at no point arguing against any change. The author was, however, trying to weaken those advocates’ stance. That’s why I think it’s qualification</p>
<p>Last thing: I feel like we’re nitpicking by discussing the whole scavenge vs. aggregate thing. I mean, the ETS just loooves messing with our minds, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be to that extent. Generally, as hard as SAT can sometimes be, they still don’t beguile (sat word point!) us that much. Since foraging was earlier in the sentence…it just makes sense that the answer would be scavenging. They seem to be of the same…group of words, if you get what I mean.</p>
<p>thats tru the sunday test is the exact same and that might affect our curve for those taking it on saturday :(</p>
<p>sunday testtakers definitely have different tests. CB isn’t that naive.</p>
<p>Pretty sure it’s a different test… otherwise everyone on sunday will get 2400!</p>
<p>Whoa… I’m pretty sure CB is not that stupid, even if we did swear to secrecy, they KNOW people like us will discuss the questions.</p>
<p>first hand evidence: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/41088-sunday-sat-possibly-same-test.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/41088-sunday-sat-possibly-same-test.html</a></p>
<p>though its a little outdated idk</p>
<p>Oh come on guys; an author does not write that an inanimate chest is dark and HAS CLAWS unless he or she is trying to instill a SINISTER reaction. CLAWS! And it isn’t about the whole passage, its about the few lines that the question asked us to refer to. Think rationally and with 20/20 hindsight, don’t just convince yourself that the answer you chose in error was correct.</p>
<p>Somehow I don’t recall the qualification/undertaking/argue question at all for the electoral college. Or it’s kinda vague in my mind. What were all the choices/exact wording of the question? If anyone remembers…</p>
<p>Does anyone remember a sentence completion with a comparison between a guy and his friend? Or was that experimental? Like it was that the guy is emotional but the friend was impassive.</p>
<p>People keep freaking out over the same three questions. At this point it doesn’t matter. It’s over. You can’t go back and change what you put.</p>
<p>Claws = fierce
fierce = imposing </p>
<p>claws =/= sinister </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Sinister means evil, not just dark or even aggressive/scary. Dictionary definition: sin·is·ter/ˈsinistər/
Adjective:<br>
Giving the impression that something harmful or evil is happening or will happen.
Wicked or criminal.</p>
<p>I think it mayyybee could’ve been ominous, or even intimidating/scary…but most definitely not sinister. Vital makes more sense…it means not just essential or fundamental, but also animated, vivacious, lively, etc.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the sentence with “derisive” in it? My mind is seriously going blank.</p>
<p>@ chillbro: I don’t remember the question so it might be experimental.</p>
<p>And yes, there’s a Sunday SAT (diff version).</p>