<p>I say 780.</p>
<p>could -1 be 800 this time??...ahh i really hope so...</p>
<p>WHAT DID YOU GUYS GET FOR THE QUESTION ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
I put revolutionary: promoted. If freedom of speech is revolutionary, it could be something new and radical, but it could also mean that it promotes revolution. The sentence said that people WITH freedom of speech felt more at ease with the social/government stability and stuff and the people WITHOUT it felt scared that some kind of dissent would break out. Therefore, no freedom of speech meant dissent was PROMOTED</p>
<p>WAS THE TRIPLETS UNDER 1000 PROBLEM ON AN EXPERIMENTAL SECTION OR NOT? PLEASE SAY IT WAS!</p>
<p>freedom of speech was experimental</p>
<p>and the triplets was not experimental, the answer was 9</p>
<p>1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9x10x11=990</p>
<p>10x11x12>1000</p>
<p>9 is the cut off</p>
<p>HEY GUYS</p>
<p>What did you get for the question that asked for the Primary Purpose of that "Slang/Cool" passage?</p>
<p>I put something like to "note the durability of the term" because the other answer choices seemed to make no sense</p>
<p>@ahighschooler
I put the same answer.</p>
<p>For the Essence sentence completion, it was aggregation. But that might have been experimental..</p>
<p>no, i had that question. but i forgot what the sentence and the other answer choices were.</p>
<p>i put took note cautiously because it said the other girl appraised her SHYLY. I didn't think SUSPICIOUSLY went with SHYLY better than CAUTIOUSLY.</p>
<p>Also,</p>
<p>What did you guys put for the question in the Venus passage concerning the third paragraph.</p>
<p>The question made a direct reference to the third passage (right after the two theories about Venus one). It was something like what did the probe of the scientists reveal:</p>
<p>I put the answer choice that said it "confirmed an obscure and implausible theory". Im not sure if thats right, though</p>
<p>yeah thats what i put too.</p>
<p>i put the answer choice that said that means everything before it was unreliable or soemthing</p>
<p>or that. i honestly don't remember what i put. but yeah, i remember the phrase in the passage "our first reliable information". so i think munkeegirl is right.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>I wouldn't think so.</p>
<p>The first paragraph introduced the speculation that scientists thought that the atmosphere of Venus mostly consisted of carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>That was then put off in the next paragraph with two theories one about the oceans and marshes.</p>
<p>The third paragraph reiterated the point that the space probe did prove that the atmosphere was mainly carbon dioxide (thus, confirming a conjecture made in the first paragraph, and refuting the the previous paragraph).</p>
<p>I still dont know though, this is how I approached the question.</p>
<p>but then why did the author include the date (1962) ? it was there for a reason.</p>
<p>it's still unreliable without evidence.</p>
<p>im confused. so what's the answer?</p>
<p>Well,</p>
<p>In the first paragraph, the author made a reference to how scientists believed that the atmosphere of Venus could have possibly been purely carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>Picking the answer choice, "Everything before has been unreliable" directly contradicts the first paragraph's supposition. Didn't the third paragraph subsequently mention (in the sentence right after it) after the date and probe that the probe really did justify the carbon dioxide atmosphere of the earth?</p>
<p>How could the probe have considered evidence before that "unreliable"? </p>
<p>The scientists have never claimed in the first paragraph that Venus was 100% carbon dioxide. It was a theory.</p>
<p>I am 95% percent sure it is the "everything before was unreliable." The clue here was in the sentence, it had said something like "the space probe provided the first 'real' evidence." The question asked what could be implied from the sentence. By using the word "real," he is implying that previously, the evidence was unreliable.</p>