<p>concept: agreed it was more like Anyone who is not in club a, cannot be in club b</p>
<p>@ college addict (doesn't it sound ghetto)</p>
<p>that's the last question of the 2nd page of the first column of the Error ID?
The clause was wrong. I put A.</p>
<p>I know this may be a little off-topic in the midst of your intense answer-exchanges, but how important is the PSAT in admissions? </p>
<p>If you merely get commended, does it sharply cut your chances of getting into Ivy-caliber schools?</p>
<p>If you did just OK on the PSAT (perhaps 195-210), but you get a 2200+ SAT and 34+ ACT, would this "make up", so to speak, for the PSAT scores? Do any of you guys know people that were non-Semifinalists who managed to get into Ivy-caliber schools?</p>
<p>that's what i got, debocena and swim44</p>
<p>zenythz: colleges don't see your PSAT scores at all</p>
<p>oh yeah. the LOGIC one!! </p>
<p>Yeah. It was like " anyone who is not in the club that the girl was not in is not in the OTHER club"</p>
<p>debo: It was the right that was inherited to do something, correct?</p>
<p>@12love,
the focus of the paragraph was that tv is like a "birthright". People can access news instantly. Does any one have an opinion?</p>
<p>zenythz: I know a girl in my school who got commended I think, but ended up getting 2260 on the real SAT. She got into Yale.</p>
<p>i dont even think colelges see PSAT scores...my school has the optiont o remove off of transcript and collegeboard doesnt send it...so i think you can still fail and get into good school...all about SAT</p>
<p>alhtough if you fail PSAT you are probaly gonna fail SAT too</p>
<p>hey so do you guys think it was rather than write/instead of to write</p>
<p>and was the one with throughly enough redudant or correct?</p>
<p>someone tell me about the not cautiously watching one!!</p>
<p>@CA: Yeah the inheriting thing.</p>
<p>@neot: any more info on the "thoroughly" one?</p>
<p>what was the "cautiously watching one" about?</p>
<p>about the "thoroughly enough" question- i changed it from e to incorrect (i don't remember the letter); i think i over-thought it</p>
<p>i thought thoroughly enough was fine. But now I'm doubting myself..</p>
<p>...."send emails and make phone calls to friends (rather than write) letters".
"instead of to write letters" was too much of a stretch for me.</p>
<p>I thought thoroughly enough was fine too..</p>
<p>....what was the thoroughly enough one about?</p>
<p>i said thoroughly enough was fine. It wasn't redundant, but the Not cautiously watching one was on the ID section of writing and it said something like Not cautiously watching blah blha the time prevented the teacher from teaching clearly. Something like that. I said it was not cautiously watching because it didn't match the subject of the second clause which was time since time doesnt cautiously watch</p>
<p>What did you guys get for the one where it was like "If x -5 = 2, then what is 3x - 5?"?</p>