<p>what was the definition of "passed" in the sentence?</p>
<p>yes ziggy I took the derivative and I also got y=2x-2 which I am 99% is right</p>
<p>Tito was loyal to the community
and enegetic and approachable (I think these were the adjectives used). He was NOT intimidating.</p>
<p>for the definition of passed, I put something like ''going through the crowd''</p>
<p>all you had to do for the 2x-2 was look at the y-intercept and only one of the graphs had -2 has the y-intercept</p>
<p>coolsushicutter:
i also found it very difficult. didn't really know what she was trying to say in the middle of it, like when she said its best to write when everyone else is dead. </p>
<p>-I would also like to know the answer to that one (why did she say it was best to write when people were dead?)</p>
<p>what was the answer to #51 or something in math where it was given that there are 4 points on a circle and if you place them randomly somewhere on the circle and use lines to connect them all how many nonoverlapping regions would you get???</p>
<p>I put 24</p>
<p>It's 8.</p>
<p>inguyen - im honestly not sure. I think i put how she said there could be no contradictions because its only her story and not anyone elses, thus no dispute.</p>
<p>i put 8</p>
<p>this was probably an easy question, but what was the answer to that question on the reading section with all the percentages; i put 20</p>
<p>its 8 for the four random points on the circle</p>
<p>and for "left alone with what was" it was that she could write her history without being corrected or needing verification</p>
<p>yeah i think i also put 20 or more</p>
<p>GTO really?!!? because i remember doing 1/2 x - 2. and im positive thats wrong now that i rmeber the graph. i did x over y instead of y over x to find slope or something i geuss</p>
<p>paki, that circle one was 8.</p>
<p>coolsushicutter that is what I put</p>
<p>uhh can anyone predict what missing 5 in english and math would yield?</p>
<p>Graph one was 2x-2 for sure...</p>
<p>It said 1/5 (20%) in the passage</p>
<p>
In the case of the waiter, the comma was not necessary because there was not an independent clause after "but"
</p>
<p>This is the logical fallacy of "denying the antecedent." It is true that a comma is necessary before an independent clause, but it is not true that simply because "but" is not forming an independent clause , it doesn't require a comma.</p>
<p>just so I didn't make a careless, the answer to that percentage problem was 20 percent right because it was 500 and so dropping to 400 would be 20%</p>
<p>what?? no way it didn't require a comma</p>