<p>Mehh, got that wrong then..</p>
<p>when do we get our essays on the 13th of feb with everything else or earlier? Ill be on a class trip to Italy on the 13th so I'll have to wait until the 21st to find out my scores :)</p>
<p>Yeah, it was to refute previous scientific research</p>
<p>Rabidchickens, I'm almost positive that we get our essays the same day as our scores. For some reason, I remember hearing somebody say that we possibly get our essays two days after we get our regular scores.</p>
<p>Wait, but didn't the answer say "refute RECENT scientific research"? However, the passage said that within the past decades, scientists have discovered new info about blackholes. Therefore, how can you refute recent scientific research?</p>
<p>I forget what I put...but wasn't the point of that thing to introduce new ideas or something. remind me what the transition was.</p>
<p>Yeah, it was definitely RECENT research because I remember thinking that whatever the question was referring to WAS the recent research...so that can't be right</p>
<p>I was deciding between refute recent sci. research and new information to..elaborate? on the first few sentences.</p>
<p>i chose the latter because it said recent research and I couldn't find that.</p>
<p>I think I put "reveal another view of previous info" for the blackholes one. Because I was thinking that the last 2 lines (blackholes affect distant star formation) now make the previous info (blackholes are small & don't affect anything far away) look obsolete.</p>
<p>okay well what were the different choices...I forget what I put but I know I was pretty confident on what I chose when I did it. I'm totally forgetting the whole passage. Anyone care to reiterate what the passage was about from beg. to end?</p>
<p>I remember something about recent research. I think the choice was refure PREVIOUS scientific resarch. If not, then it was a new view on previous information. The correct answer had something about previous..</p>
<p>oh yeah ok it just hit me. It was definately new view, because I don't think the author's purpose was to really refute anything. He just wanted to introduce new information about something already established. </p>
<p>idk what do you think?</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the grid-in question about what year something would be at 100? I remember it would take 46 years from 1990...so I put 2036. However, I am afraid it was one of those tricky questions where it's really 2035/2037 because of before/after wording. Thanks :)</p>
<p>stf300, I put 2035 for that. The question was if there was 10 of something (population maybe?) in 1990 and it doubled every year, what year would it reach 100? Maybe you calculated with 1990 starting with 0 species? </p>
<p>Darkruler & merudh, don't get my hopes up. =/</p>
<p>lol you mean 46 years including 1990. It said what year would it be and thus it would be 45.</p>
<p>if you did it using some crazy algebra way you might have gotten 46 and forgot to include 1990 when adding. But if you just simply did 100-10 = 90 and then do 90/2 = 45.</p>
<p>1990+45 = 2035
wallah</p>
<p>nvm answered</p>
<p>ah sad... so far I've gotten 2 wrong...and they're both on grid-ins. Isn't that better than missing mult choice?</p>
<p>Hm... i did 10+(n-1)2</p>
<p>Got 46</p>
<p>Added 46 to 1990.</p>
<p>blah :(</p>
<p>I got one grid-in wrong too, can someone tell us how that affects our score in comparison to getting the same number of MC wrong?</p>
<p>Merudah, I think you're right. It was a new idea based on previous research.</p>