<p>Big Dreams... it wasn't humorous becuase it said something about contradicting his view of nature or something like that.. the quote supported his view</p>
<p>rb, i read that sentence about a hundred times (spent 5 mins out of 10 on that one question), and i don;t think have was in there - I would not have put by changing if have was there... unless I was seeing things after 3+ hours of testing.</p>
<p>pretty sure it is facets</p>
<p>and for my last one, I had 1/sqt. 5. Many people are saying it's 1/5. I guess I am wrong. :(</p>
<p>ahh great</p>
<p>i think i messed up the writing portion</p>
<p>the one with the error was "had we" but then i changed it to E for no reason
then i put "had we changed" again
D:</p>
<p>By changing to a later date, we might not find a place to stay.</p>
<p>Were we to change to a later date, we might not find a place to stay.</p>
<p>Don't you think the second one sounds better? Even if it was just "might", "by changing" sounds really awkward, dont you agree? If I did not put "were we", the only logical way to say it would be:</p>
<p>If we change to a later date, we might not be able to find a place.</p>
<p>And "were we to" is the subjunctive that accomplishes the "if".</p>
<p>the equ was 5y=x*sqrt(5)</p>
<p>what was y*sqrt(5) / 5x</p>
<p>y = sqrt(5)
x =5... plug in to get 1/5</p>
<p>taped duck - respond to my post before it gets buried! (last one on page 3)</p>
<p>"i dont think so. the question said perimeter was 840 YARDS, and they never change units on SAT without like putting them in CAPITALs or underlining... and I didn't see any of that."</p>
<p>yah I said it was 315 yards because I remember looking back at the question to see if it wanted width or length and I specifically remember it saying 840 yards so there would be no need to convert anything to feet.</p>
<p>The one about a rectangle, that you cut 10 cm square off each corner and get the volume, anyone get that? I had alot of trouble understanding what it was asking.</p>
<p>but were we to change sounds like it happened in the past which does not agree with the rest of the sentence</p>
<p>I thought all of the options sounded weird... but by changing seems most correct</p>
<p>If there was a have, you're probably right</p>
<p>Anyother opinions?</p>
<p>rectangle one was 15000</p>
<p>^ For that writing question, I put down "Had we...". What do you think?</p>
<p>Def cannot be "had we" because of "might"</p>
<p>I am 85% were we, 15% by changing.</p>
<p>On second thought, it just CANT be by changing. I don't know, it doesnt click in my head.</p>
<p>Were we to change to the late date, we might not be able to find a place to stay.</p>
<p>By changing to the late date, we might not be able to find a place to stay.</p>
<p>Had we changed to the late date, we might not be able to find a place to stay. <- pretty sure this is wrong, had = past, might not be able to = future</p>
<p>SAT IM Chat:
NovemberSAT</p>
<p>If 'were we to change' was correct, the sentence would have to be like:</p>
<p>Were we to change to the late date, we might not HAVE BEEN able to find a place to stay.</p>
<p>1 Math wrong so far.</p>
<p>"I put "Were we to change". By changing doesnt seem to go well with "we MIGHT HAVE". (which I'm pretty sure it was) Might have indicates subjunctive, and I think it has to be "were we to". Anyway, I think this section was experimental?"</p>
<p>It did not seem experimental ... </p>
<p>Also, "we might have" implies the pluperfect subjunctive only if there's a participle following it ... and I don't recall one. (i.e. "we might have difficulty" doesn't count ... ) </p>
<p>Might, like "could" (both of which, not too surprisingly, are the past inflection of deponent verbs signifying "to be able to"), can be both past subjunctive, past indicative, or just plain modal auxiliaries. </p>
<hr>
<p>*We might go to the bank.<a href="subjunctive%20in%20origin%20for%20social%20reasons,%20in%20order%20to%20soften%20the%20%22force%22%20of%20a%20sentence,%20effectively%20indicative%20in%20function">/I</a></p>
<p>c.f. "could you do it" versus "can you do it"; both are indicative in function but the former is subjunctive in origin.</p>
<p>*Fearing the enemy might attack along the left flank, the general split his artillery guard into two. <a href="%22past%20tense%20of%20then%20future%20action%22">/I</a>
He said he might go to the bank => he said he was going to the bank. </p>
<p>cf. "Remember how the government said they would give (were going to give) an award of 20,000 dollars for information leading to his capture? They've rescinded the offer!" </p>
<p>*
He might have done it.<a href="Indicative">/I</a> </p>
<p>*Even if you were able to rob a bank, you might not even be able to get cash in your money without getting caught.<a href="subjunctive">/I</a></p>
<p>I'm really confused as to what I put down for the "Were we to change" question. I'm not sure anymore, but I think I put down the the last answer choice.</p>
<p>Whatever I picked, it sounded right to me. haha</p>
<p>If it was 'might have', I concede - you guys are right.</p>
<p>But, I spent a LONG time on that question, and I can normally read sentences very closely. If there was no have, 'were we to change' is wrong - I think</p>