<p>Math: Did anyone have to use NCR for something? I was in a rush to finish a section and I vaguely remember there being a question which was asking how many pairs of two can be made from six items.</p>
<p>Writing: </p>
<li><p>Was that last question of the find the error section has shrunk or had shrunk? I’d like to hear the final word on that. I said it was an error, but I’ve heard convincing arguments both ways.</p></li>
<li><p>One of the questions in the correct an essay section asked something along the lines of how should the sentence about burning bulk mail and newspapers be written? What was the answer to that?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Critical Reading:</p>
<li><p>Which was the better answer, unfettered or judicious?</p></li>
<li><p>Which was the better answer, equivocal or deplorable?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Writing: Unsure. For the "has/had shrunk" I thought it should be "had". My reasoning - the sentence was in the past tense, so therefore "had" had to be used. I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Oh, darn. I put equivocal :-(, and now that i think about it, deplorable is probably a better answer.</p>
<p>I agreed with you, lolcatz about the "had" not "has" but its still a tough call. I don't think ive ever seen a SAT question where after looking at it this long and reading this many arguments that I wasn't able to be sure one way or the other...</p>
<p>Oh, and anyone care to explain why its 2(5+4+3+2+1)? I just did 6C2 and then multiplied the combinations by two; same answer, though. THANK GOD!</p>
<p>Equivocal is wrong. Equivocal means open to multiple interpretations/intentionally misleading.</p>
<p>Deplorable was a much stronger choice because there is nothing to suggest that the scientists' presentation, although it misquoted etc, was intentionally misleading/subject to multiple interpretations.</p>
<p>no, i thought since the results weren't straightforward...
darn i don't remember the q... but i remember that thought
i put equivocal and unfettered btw</p>
<p>I was so confident about the equivocal question too...I had thought that equivocal meant incorrect, not multiple meanings. ): Deplorable seemed too generic, since it simply means bad, and not inaccurate...</p>
<p>here's what i think about the 'has shrunk' question:</p>
<p>so the sentence was, more or less: "That the art thefts were decreasing suggests that the demand has shrunk."</p>
<p>I think that if it just said, the art thefts decreased, then you would use 'had shrunk' But i think were decreasing means that it was still ongoing, with no exact end to the action yet.</p>
<p>I'm positive had shrunk is the correct answer ;). HAS shrunk implies that it is shrunk now... completely irrelevant to what they are talking about. suggests is in present because it suggest TO US in the PRESENT that it HAD SHRUNK when they WERE trying TO SELL the loot ;).</p>
<p>He is :). I know EVERYTHING (jk). But, seriously, one teacher I asked is possibly one of the most brilliant teacher's i've met, and the other gets paid to teach SAT writing so kids get 800's...</p>
<p>Just because the basis for the conclusion took place in past perfect doesn't mean the conclusion must. For example, you could say "The fact that Pete had run to school Monday shows that he has changed his opinion about running."</p>
<p>Btw, have we ruled out that the proper usage is not "has shrunken"?</p>