<p>It was the trap answer because passage one does not mention anything about financial cost.</p>
<p>I said financial costs. Passage 1 completely overlooked the costs of those green energy alternatives, whereas Passage 2 emphasized the extravagant amounts of money that have been invested in these green energy sources.</p>
<p>@hitthebooks1994
That’s the point.</p>
<p>@Pluto
I got 3 questions wrong on both times that I have taken the SAT… if the consensus is correct, it appears that I’m getting 3 wrong again… -.-</p>
<p>Anyone put that passage 2 said that nuclear power was superior? (with respect to the last sentence of passage 1)</p>
<p>near the end, it mentioned that nuclear energy was HERE, NOW (i actually read that in all-caps). so that was a huge qualifier for all of my answer choices. green options are available but can’t be produced easily and in large quantities yet. so for now, we have nuclear power.</p>
<p>760+ usually…math drags me down</p>
<p>but come on it never said those green power stuff was blameworthy =(
I felt like all it talked about was the costs</p>
<p>alright fine last time I only got a 700 on CR…grrr</p>
<p>@Pencilxboxes
yes I put that it was superior due to environmental problems of coal something like that</p>
<p>the question was asking,</p>
<p>how would passage 2 react to passage one’s argument about hydrofuels</p>
<p>wasnt it?</p>
<p>so it doesnt matter if passage 1 mentions the cost or not</p>
<p>@nostalgicwisdom</p>
<p>I agree with you completely. I picked the same answer. There was nothing in Passage 2 that indicated a dislike for the other methods.</p>
<p>You can’t underestimate something until you have estimated it in the first. You do badly on something until you have done it</p>
<p>760 last time on CR, I hate nuclear power now.</p>
<p>oh right shoot</p>
<p>-1 = 800
-2 = 800
-3 = 780
-4 = 760
-5 = 740
-6 = 720
-7 = 700</p>
<p>^^^ anyone think this looks realistic? how would you change it?</p>
<p>omg i switched ameliorate and exacerbate for 2 questions. omg.
what is it if i got 2-3 wrong and omit 2?</p>
<p>@ivyandlemonade</p>
<p>I, like you, used the “here and now” phrase (although for maybe a different question). I answered that the main concern of Author 2 was the expanded use of nuclear power as a temporary resource.</p>
<p>I put the one with “it’s been done but it is leaving a want for more” (something like that)</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, the question asked about what passage 2 thought about the author’s suggestion to save money by going to alternate resources. Passage 2 talked about how we already have invested in hydro/solar/whatever, and we’re in desperate need of nuclear still.</p>
<p>@jd i would hope not.
CR is usually curved more than math. that would look more realistic for math.</p>
<p>last time i got -8 and 670, so that curve seems right</p>
<p>crazypluto, the quote was something like “we need to limit our use of energy, and we also need to invest in finding alternative sources of energy”. </p>
<p>Passage 2 starts after the intro talking about how they’ve poured billions into research and enough gas-powered stoves to bankrupt California.</p>
<p>math would look more like this @ivy</p>
<p>-1 = 780
-2 = 750
-3 = 730
-4 = 710
-5 = 690
-6 = 680
-7 = 670
-8 = 660</p>
<p>@CrazyPluto</p>
<p>I didn’t feel like Author 1 was suggesting alternate sources to save money, but rather to avoid nuclear disasters. So I felt that Author 2’s criticism that Author 1 was underestimating the financial implications was more natural – since he is bringing up a point that Author 1 seems to completely ignore.</p>
<p>If Author 1 WERE making a case for alternate sources that was motivated by money, I would have chosen the answer choice that you chose.</p>
<p>Who knows?</p>
<p>why is it archaeologist and not spy</p>