<p>I’m probably wrong, but I still think the usage of the quotes around “real” indicates that the real environment that the foxes live in now is intruded upon by human development.</p>
<p>Statistics can be meaningless if interpreted in context…if all the 36-scorers in the US applied to the same school, 36 would be the 1st percentile…</p>
<p>Do you see what I’m getting at? 32+ is an amazing score for any selective school, but you have to weigh in that other parts of the app count.</p>
<p>Anyone remember what the order of the passages were?
So Like:
Prose Fiction: The girl and the violin
Social Science:
Humanities:
Natural Science:</p>
<p>No I know what you mean but Harvard isn’t going to look at a 30 and go “Wow this person is in the 92nd percentile! We have to have them!” Same goes for a 32.</p>
<p>“Real” was definitely natural habitat. I’m 99.9% sure.</p>
<p>Can you explain why?</p>
<p>I already did earlier. In the preceding sentence, it talked about the habitat the foxes had created around humans. It contrasted this by saying their “real” habitat meaning the one that is natural to them and untouched by humans. This wasn’t a question I even thought twice about. I can’t really come up with more concrete evidence unless someone finds the passage. I have a bad memory.</p>
<p>Can someone make an answer list for each passage??</p>
<p>Prose Fiction: The girl and the violin
Social Science: Foxes
Humanities: Chinese-american who writes in english
Natural Science: About the mangrove trees</p>
<p>@thirdplanet I put humans infringing. Since it is in quotes for no reason it should be assumed to be a facetious statement. It makes sense because they discuss how the foxes live in the city/area and how they survive w/ humans everywhere. Their “real” environment is definitely not their natural environment, atleast how I interpreted it. I don’t think it’s too deep for the ACT – if real was not quoted I would’ve put natural enviro, but since it was quoted i believe it is the human infringement answer</p>
<p>@straferkev
social science: im blanking there
humanities: chinese-american dude who wrote a book
nat sci: the foxes endangered, dudes reseearch on them</p>
<p><em>eddit</em>thirdplanet is right on the topics for readin.</p>
<p>@andrew
I’m almost positive that it was their natural untouched environment for the same reasons that thirrdplanet described</p>
<p>Yeah you guys are not convincing me. At all. I’m sure.</p>
<p>I’m prettyyyy sure that for that fox question it was human structures, because it specifically stated that their “real world” habitat was made through human structures, and that when new man-made structures were built indirectly more fox homes were built lol</p>
<p>You had to read the sentence before it to get it. The sentence that had “real” whatever in it contrasted the human structures. It wasn’t using it as the same thing they had stated right beforehand. I can understand how you guys got that answer but I don’t think it’s right.</p>
<p>Bro it said REAL WORLD</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean their “natural” habitat, its refering to the real world circumstances of these freaking foxes, as in what is REALLY their habitat</p>
<p>And it hinted it by mentioning the Human sewers (or some human structure)</p>
<p>Flash, sorry, but you’re wrong. In context, “real” was meant to contrast the current state of fox habitat with the natural habitat in which they used to live</p>
<p>Thanks karate kid. It’s pointless to argue over this unless we actually find the article. So far I’ve been unsuccessful. I have been typing in key words into google but it hasn’t worked yet.</p>
<p>I think you might have chosen that answer because yes real world = their habitat is influenced by humans. However, reading the preceding sentence makes it clear they mean the opposite.</p>
<p>real world=natural habitat.</p>
<p>IT was a new paragraph and was contrasting with their “city life”</p>
<p>Glad I have support on this. Not sure I need it but I am confident natural habitat is the right answer.</p>
<p>Can someone please go over some answers for reading?
I feel like i got 32+ on all sections but a 26 on reading…</p>