October 2011 SAT Reading

<p>^^^^^That’s what I put as well.
^^^I remember something about space exploration, but that was for the writing experimental passage (I think)…</p>

<p>@nikanon
It was like about robots going to space instead of humans or something of that sort. Its probably an expiremental</p>

<p>Hopefully -3 will be 780</p>

<p>I gave up on 800 reading a wrong time ago. Just aimin’ for a 760 ish here (I did badly on the vocab).</p>

<p>@iiBGo oh yeahhh thats right. Not political decisions or whatever, but human complexities. I think thats what i put, unless i am thinking of two different quesitons.</p>

<p>DISAPPOINTED or DEDICATED</p>

<p>@ihatecollege: I put disappointed because it seemed like to me that he was disappointed or sad that he couldnt get along</p>

<p>I put in disappointed. I’m pretty sure of it.</p>

<p>Was the answer to the nuclear passage question about what the author felt about “the approach” in lines something that it was financially understated E? That one tripped me up because i remember the second passage said that "billions and billions of dollars’ were spent attempting to find new energy sources and more efficient technology.</p>

<p>hang on, why did he choose her as a research subject? Because they had similar political goals or something?</p>

<p>@ihatecollege123
i put disappointed too</p>

<p>@wockaflocka: I’m pretty sure you’re right. The question was like “What do these passages have in common” and I think the answer was they both recognize nuclear power has long been a source of controversy.</p>

<p>@cortana431
i think it was financially understated…probably.</p>

<p>@Grisam
thats what I put</p>

<p>@Grisam: its political goals i think. If I remember correctly the last paragraph supported it. Also, can someone list the answers for the nuclear passages?</p>

<p>what’s the answer for the reiteration one?</p>

<p>^^Yay :smiley:
^^^^Yay again :D</p>

<p>what is the point of lines 1-4? It said something like Nuclear power accounted for 3% of energy but 12% of production.</p>

<p>Was this to show that we only use it fairly modestly?</p>

<p>I think similar political goals is correct because all the other choices were weird.</p>

<p>I put controversy, too. Cuz at the beginning the second one alluded to the nuclear accident or something… and what’s the purpose of that? anyone remember?</p>

<p>@jd Yes. The passage said that nuclear power accounted for ONLY 3%/12% which is supposed to be relatively insignificant.</p>