<p><a href=“http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-...est-Curves.pdf[/url]”>http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-...est-Curves.pdf</a> go crazy.</p>
<p>@colt perfectionist, maverick, …</p>
<p>@Monepo Okay, thanks! I forgot about the question, and then freaked out because I thought I had a bubbling error.</p>
<p>i feel like this test’s SC was more difficult…
anyone else with me?</p>
<p>si senor…</p>
<p>@clarinetjwk</p>
<p>I thought it was mitted… destructive.</p>
<p>I only chose that answer choice because it didn’t seem like the doctrine itself was being deceptive in any way. It seemed that the demagogue’s rise to power was only a precipitation of a lucky circumstance. That’s why I did not choose beguile. </p>
<p>Well whatever man. 1 wrong is 1 wrong. ETS thinks strangely anyhoo.</p>
<p>^Something like this:
“Politicians ___ people…”</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it was beguile/havoc. As far as I can recall, it something like the demagogue was beguiling people into supporting him, which some people realized would lead to havoc.</p>
<p>The sentence did not directly connect the demagogue with malevolent intent. The subject was the political doctrine, not the politician him/herself.</p>
<p>Whatever though. I believe that beguile and havoc would probably make sense as the correct answer. I mean, mitted/destructive is taking it a bit too far.</p>
<p>The other answer choices had no chance in bananaland.</p>
<p>@ jimmy: I think the 1st answer choice was “miffed” not mitted. </p>
<p>The sentence logic went something like “though many people are (blanked) into supporting the demagogues, they don’t fully realize the (blank) of these beliefs.” I’m pretty sure it was beguiled and havoc - just want to clear this up.</p>
<p>Actually, the sentence started off with something about intellectuals and extreme doctrines/demagogues, but another person could see the ___ that they could cause.</p>
<p>But I don’t think mitted was an answer choice? Because that sounds more right.</p>
<p>@russgenious</p>
<p>I’m fairly certain it was mitted. Well either way, I realize that I am wrong. I just wanted to answer someone else’s question. He asked if there was any way it could have not been “beguiled… havoc”</p>
<p>I need to read these things more carefully!</p>
<p>It was miffed, not mitted. What sort of word is “mitted” anyway? I looked it up, but couldn’t find anything…</p>
<p>HAHAHAAHAHAAHAAH well I guess I misread that one for sure xD AH GOD if I didn’t misread miff… 
i even knew the definition.</p>
<p>Well I can’t really complain about a -3 for CR. Although it certainly could have been prevented -______-</p>
<p>faq so far all of my mistakes have been misreads…</p>
<p>About the answer key in post #860, regarding the neatness passage: weren’t “reserved” and “messiness DOES cause you to lose time” apart of the same answer choice? I thought it was something like “reservation; messiness does cause you to lose time”</p>
<p>Also I’ll fight the parentheses/boundaries question forever.</p>
<p>@msteiny1212</p>
<p>what was the parentheses question and its answer choices? I remember the passage vividly but I can’t seem to recall the questions.</p>
<p>almost everyone here has asked a question that was already answered on previous pages. you guys are all scrubs.
please scroll through the old posts as other members have compiled a whole list of correct answers.</p>
<p>are you guys positive about the “rigorously Analyze” or “alternative something” problem in the Space Passage?</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>^
actually, it was the Electoral College question, not the Space passage</p>
<p>^seconded. And everyone with a curve question should use google</p>