May SAT 2011: CR Section

<p>I believe it said relentless–not unrelenting. The reason I spent so long on it was because I figured that, unlike “unrelenting,” relentless had a negative connotation. But it seems they’re about synonymous.</p>

<p>@jbchun</p>

<p>oh i remember
i might choose either night&day time or space&time
dont remember what exactly i chose though
i narrowed down to these two choices</p>

<p>@ gsfan</p>

<p>i said small… ugh</p>

<p>@gsfan - I remember trying complex/break and it ended up saying something that didn’t really make sense - “the chip would be complex enough to break” vs “the chip would be too small to be functional”</p>

<p>If, as you say, it had to do with fundamental limitations, small/functional makes more sense to me.</p>

<p>It was definitely night and day, not space and time.</p>

<p>Fairly certain it was small/functional, as well. The other choices didn’t make sense.</p>

<p>Does anyone remember the question for the austerity/profligacy one? I know the word with profligacy was some weird word like entruc (spelling is way off).
Is the curve for critical reading ever worse than -2 = 800?</p>

<p>small/functional was the only one that made sense. </p>

<p>i put austerity, but i forget the question.</p>

<p>Profligacy/truncated I think. But the answer was most likely austerity/??</p>

<p>The sentence was something along the lines of</p>

<p>The city was _____ in its actions, it respected its taxpayers by _______ the amount of buildings it built.</p>

<p>wait, </p>

<p>what was question for -> Daytime to Nightime
and what was for this -> blur between day and night</p>

<p>are those different questions?
i got confused</p>

<p>oh that’s right, it was definitely austerity then.</p>

<p>for the small and functional
what exactly was the sentence?
i just remember thinking that if it got too small, it would lose its functionality (hence the fundamental limitation)</p>

<p>Definitely austere then. I was just hoping that it said the City was trying to eliminate profligacy by truncating. Just wishful thinking… lol</p>

<p>anybody remember the dual short passages about video games? there’s a question that i put both of them refer to “video games change players’ value” or sth like that</p>

<p>gsfan - I think that’s exactly what the sentence was saying (if it got too small, it would not be functional). I remember reading that over several times so I doubt I misread.</p>

<p>trangle - I vaguely remember that and I think that’s what I put. If I recall correctly, that also had the answer choice of “mostly teens and children play video games”.</p>

<p>yeah, they both said it might change the player.</p>

<p>what did people say for the other question? i put the first one analyzed an activity that the second suggested may be harmful or whatever, but i wasn’t sure.</p>

<p>Yes, they both suggested that video games can transform players.</p>

<p>And it was austere, without a doubt.</p>

<p>EDIT: Yes, said the first analyzed and the other suggested how it might be harmful.</p>

<p>Okay then i think i put small and functional too.
I remember putting in complex/break first but I think I changed it. phew :)</p>

<p>So far the controversial CR questions:</p>

<p>The scholars were frustrated or delighted.
The girl in high school was either exuberant or perplexed.</p>

<p>Which one is which.</p>

<p>Agreed with Dizzying and notanengineer on both</p>

<p>gsfan - I’d lean towards exuberant, she was doing wild things and I’m not sure how that would translate to perplexity. Not sure on the scholars one but I put frustrated.</p>

<p>anyone know the passage i’m talking about with the woman and her mother Rose and writing a story about her?
was that experimental</p>