<p>no, it was asking for something that was more than siperficial===malevolent</p>
<p>superficial*</p>
<p>To anyone asking for score conversons. Here is what Collegeboard should have given you.</p>
<p><a href=“http://i.imgur.com/UWWJdC0.jpg”>http://i.imgur.com/UWWJdC0.jpg</a></p>
<p>just remove the asterisks w/ imgur</p>
<p>@HaruhiSuzumiya That particular conversion table only pertains to the practice test associated with it. That is not the curve for all PSAT exams. </p>
<p>thats wrong because there was a month skipped between june and august, then it lead straight into september</p>
<p>led*</p>
<p>is there an "even so"answer in the improving paragraphs?</p>
<p>I might not get 60 in CR (probably -10?)</p>
<p>If 1golfer1 is serious and all of his answers are correct, I’m sunk. </p>
<p>So for writing improving paragraph, is the answer as is or is it “filmmakers…” </p>
<p>late to the discussion but read through the posts.
the big questions seems to be:
- indignant vs. less passionate vs. more businesslike
- support vs undermine for the invention passages.</p>
<p>the first one i found people leaning towards businesslike? maybe?
the second one, seems fifty fifty?</p>
<p>anybody confirm this?</p>
<p>@yjkimnada
- I think businesslike is more appropriate, because the essay was written more forthrightly. “Businesslike” doesn’t necessarily mean formal; it can also mean straight to the point, without wasting much time, and the author did just that. He didn’t put lots of filler describing how he trained dolphins.</p>
<ol>
<li>I marked in that the second inventions passage undermined the first. Some person, in a post lost in this vast thread, found the article, which was published by the NY Times. The title was “Necessity Is the Mother Of Invention”. Although it is not always right to “infer” in SAT reading sections, I believe the title of the article reflects the message of the passage we read this past morning. </li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>OK so my hunch was right. businesslike indeed</li>
<li>This one unfortunately i got wrong if answer is undermined. however, then the next question, the one about not understanding other inventors’ frustrations. what is the answer to that?</li>
</ol>
<p>I think I put something about the inventors’ dynamic… I didn’t identify any frustration by the inventors of the first passage. It didn’t make sense for the woman to share the feelings of another group if the “group” didn’t possess those feelings in the first place.</p>
<p>now i am confused. i too put the inventors dynamic was similar between other inventors and Anne Smith. but that goes against the claim that the two passages are contradictory?</p>
<p>The first behavior passage uses the first 2 paragraphs to make a point. I think that it would be hard to argue that something is businesslike, while it is clearly indignant </p>
<p>Back to square 1. … I guess we will never know the answer to those two questions until January</p>
<p>In writing was it “some people” and also “sometimes a filmmaker will change”?</p>
<p>It was indignant, much like I am in response to this thread.</p>
<p>@HaruhiSuzumiya Except it wasn’t impromptu, she was already asking him random questions. It was either probing or impertinent.</p>
<p>it says in the first line that in a society where phones etc. are considered great inventions, Smith is gloriously out of step.</p>
<p>That doesn’t have to mean that she invents out of necessity, phones etc. can be invented for luxurious desire, or profit making desire, but what she does can still be desire i.e. desire to help people.
I’m just confused because I think it would have made it more clearer if it was indeed necessity. Didn’t seem that way to me, especially the understanding sentence. It seemed like she invents because she understands, not because she needs to</p>