<p>According to this list i have 6 wrong, although 3 of them are potentially right. so am expecting 720-770.</p>
<p>
Unless there is some precedent for this that I don’t know about, I’d say close to nil. Each question goes through a lengthy approval process, and the test makers are pretty certain that there is a best answer, even if a bunch of (however intelligent) high schoolers think otherwise.</p>
<p>Personally I didn’t even consider caustic as Ive always thought of it as burning or sarcastic and I didn’t get that feel from the passage. But now that I see other people’s lines of thought I’m not quite so sure of myself. It does seem rather ambiguous…</p>
<p>wait for the nuclear passage what about the superiority of nuclear power outweighs its negative effects</p>
<p>what was the caustic vs. vehement question?</p>
<p>@rd2012, good call, that needs to be added. That was about how the author of passage two would respond to the question posed at the end of passage one, no?</p>
<p>right that was the question</p>
<p>can anyone else confirm this?</p>
<p>Does anybody know how to find the second blogging passage? I’ve tried plugging quotes into google with no avail.</p>
<p>Any direct quotations?</p>
<p>hey WHOA WHOAA WHOA…</p>
<p>for the caustic versus vehement… I think i put resigned! The 2nd author gave all these examples for solar power and whatnot, but then at the last sentence mentioned that all of that wasn’t feasible… he’s resorting to nuclear power… even though he doesnt want to… thus, resigned…</p>
<p>debate?</p>
<p>hey can anyone confirm the question me and prospectiveappli were discussing</p>
<p>@roanfel, hold on, i don’t think you interpreted the passage correctly. he never said that it wouldn’t work out - in fact, he was a clear proponent of nuclear energy. sure, he acknowledged the downside (the huge cost), but he even said that the benefits would eventually outweigh the costs. it definitely isn’t resigned.</p>
<p>i put vehement, b/c caustic means biting and sarcastic, and i thought was waayyyy too extreme. evidently, this question is still up for debate, so i wouldn’t worry too much about it. the sat’s over anyway.</p>
<p>I really, really hope the list is right. Like, really.</p>
<p>and everyone got 4 no-errors on the writing?</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>What score are you hoping for?</p>
<p>2350…
I know i goofed up on 2 math questions due to misbubbling, so it’s questionable. I think I did pretty well on my writing, though, and if I didn’t make any other silly mistakes, then I should be okay. I know I got one wrong (the vehemence one), but I think you can get an 800 with -1 on CR!
Just god’s grace now!</p>
<p>Nice, that’s what I got on my last take. I know I aced Writing and Math this time around, but I’m either at -2 or -3 or CR. Difference between 2370 and 2400 right there.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the answer choice for Walden was human centered? I think I maybe have skimmed over that choice.</p>
<p>Some things remain unclear to me</p>
<p>1) On the short passage about blogging, was there an answer that included the word “irk”? I read the consolidated list, but I don’t remember this word whatsoever.
2) Nuclear passage…financial understatement or tried thus far wanting?
3) WAS there really a question about author 2 responding to the end of author 1’s passage??? I have no memory of this…uh oh.
4) Why wasn’t the main concern of author 2 to advocate expanded use of nuclear energy as a source? Sure, he addressed environmental issues – but in the end, it appeared that the author was pretty set on rooting for nuclear energy.</p>
<p>I put the “irksome” one for the answer on the blog passages </p>
<p>and for the Walden story, i put fundamentally human centered and i know a large consensus of CCers put that…so feel secure and safe :)</p>
<p>^Yes there was a question that asked how would passage 2 respond to the last sentence of passage 1 and the answer was like “nuclear plants are superior to such method” or something close to it</p>