<p>I just don’t know if there was actually evidence</p>
<p>gtg, bye. </p>
<p>but something I’m sure. I’m taking the ACT instead of this dumb, screwed up test. </p>
<p>@yullari27: I’m sorry. The answer is 13.5 for sure.</p>
<p>what was the answer to the math one where they gave you like 2 sides of a triangle and you had to find the total length of the segment on the right? it was near the end of the 1st math section</p>
<p>@JuicyMango
yeah that was a terrible question. I thought that it was supporting because the specific language of “understand the frustration”. Nowhere did it talk about how the inventions were necessary. It made things easier sure, but it definitely didn’t make it seem like people’s lives rested on those inventions. Of course that’s how I define necessity, maybe it’s not that extreme?</p>
<p>Here are some other math answers I remember: 150 (x, x and 60 degrees). 72 (salad, desserts, dinner), $2.50 (truck and car), (-6, 3)- circle on coordinate plane</p>
<p>Did you guys say the passage about inventions undermined the theory, and for the next one that she wouldne feel connected with the frustrations of other inventors?</p>
<p>@JuicyMango - I agree. If the CR curve isn’t massive, there’s no way I qualified for NM at this point.
@Pbobby - I said undermine, but everyone else is getting illustrate, so I’d go by that.</p>
<p>wouldnt</p>
<p>For CR, I’m pretty sure it was philosophical reflection- the guy was reflecting on his experiences</p>
<p>I got undermine for the first but basic needs for the second…there was no evidence of frustration</p>
<p>i think i’ll qualify for NM(aced the mat, max 5 wrong on the CR, and 2 wrong on the writing) but it’s probably that I get way lower than my PSAT from last year, SAT, or ACT which is a joke. </p>
<p>Really pissed they don’t let you use sophomore year scores either. </p>
<p>I felt that the test was pretty hard- can someone predict?
CR -4
Math -0
Writing -1</p>
<p>ok thanks @ILoveRoti, @glasshours </p>
<p>i said there was a similar dynamic. </p>
<p>@gurlygurl It was definitely a chronological narrative. He was reflecting but it wasn’t a philosophical attitude. He was just recounting events </p>
<p>I would say the second passage was philosophical because it discussed the implications of a practice advocated in passage 1, in that it suggests humans can be simplified down to a series of reactions based on stimulation. It opposed the first passage by saying that humans are distinguished from other animals because we have free will, and have the ability to change our own destiny with our own actions, and act to change ourselves, our environment, and others without being provoked in a way akin to the positive reinforcement given to animals</p>
<p>I liked the way this test was structured honestly, I felt that though a lot felt subjective and could not readily be supported by the text…that’s how exams are supposed to be. Not just simple answers but also those that are in the text very subtly. So even though a lot of the questions were annoying, I felt that they were too, I wouldn’t say that it was a bad test. Just very different from previous ones, and certainly from what everyone was expecting</p>
<p>What did you guys put for the one about how the author of passage 1 would view the Smith lady of passage 2
(It was about the invention one)
I put frustration something, not sure. </p>
<p>Who else put quaker as their religion? lol just me?</p>
<p>well she understands the frustration of people which was kinda the point of the first paragraph</p>
<p>" It is this kind of understanding – of tedium, of tired muscles, of hunger pangs – that Smith brings to her work."</p>
<p>it was chronological narrative, personal reflection implies that he deeply thought about the events and he didn’t. In the first two paragraphs, he just listed events.</p>