<p>I won’t reveal too much, but this should be enough:</p>
<li>2 bisecting lines</li>
<li>angle x is 30</li>
<li>angle y is 40</li>
<li>it asks for certain angle</li>
<li>Grid-in answer</li>
</ol>
<p>What was the answer?</p>
<p>the answer was 90</p>
<p>90 10charsssssssss</p>
<p>Crap...........</p>
<p>What's the lowest/highest I could get if that was my only wrong one?</p>
<p>afruff23,</p>
<p>I'm going to repost what I wrote in another thread here:</p>
<p>I believed the credited response to the "angle bisectors" grid-in question is 90. Yet, if you examine the question closely, you'll discover that the statements in the question are actually logically inconsistent. To be more precise, the test writers introduced a fourth (third?) angle bisector that was completely unnecessary and actually made the question ambiguous, since with the additional information, the question was impossible to solve. I read and redid the question about three or four times, and I am almost certain that this is a blatant error on the part of the test writers. I already called the College Board about this question, as I think it must have somehow slipped through the cracks in the quality control process. Unfortunately, I can't recall the precise question to point out the exact flaw, but when (and if) I do, I'll let you know.</p>
<p>I worked it several times and kept getting only one angle measure and the other 2 angles were solved for to create 2 identical systems of equations. Thus I could not solve it.</p>
<p>However, I think you are wrong Godot. I only remember 2 angle bisectors.</p>
<p>the question gave 3 bisectors, godot may very well be right as i remember only using 2 of the bisectors and not even bothering to check the last one</p>
<p>I hope you're right and that the SAT makers made a bad question. Here's hoping to my 800 in math!!! BTW, thank you.</p>
<p>afruff23,</p>
<p>It gave <em>at least</em> 3 angle bisectors -- of that I am certain. And, yes, using the first two would have been sufficient, but using the last one would not only be unnecessary, but it would also have been self-contradictory (I realize I split the "not only...but also" linking expression there, but it sounds better! :) )!</p>
<p>Just to be sure we're talking about the some question, it asked for angle AOE I believe, correct?</p>
<p>Has CB said anything to you yet?</p>
<p>GoDot, I drew a diagram to try to refresh your memory, as i have no idea where the last bisector was.
The middle green and red lines bisect the angles formed by their respective outer lines...
yeah i was bored
<a href="http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5170/satthingkc6.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5170/satthingkc6.jpg</a></p>
<p>oh and i wrote 35 instead of 30 because i'm really smart like that</p>
<p>procrastinate,</p>
<p>I noticed the error with the "35." :) Okay, my memory is coming back to me now (thanks to your very nice diagram). I actually think that the error might have been a simple typo on the part of ETS, but it's a bad error nonetheless.</p>
<p>Let's label the points first:</p>
<p>I believe the common endpoint of the line segments was O. Going counterclockwise, we'll call the other endpoints of the line segments A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively.</p>
<p>The question stated that the last (third) angle bisector, OC, bisects angle BOE, which is just preposterous, since we know that angle COE measures <em>more than</em> 50 degrees, and angle BOC measures less than 40 degrees! I believe that was the inconsistency. ETS probably meant to write that OC bisects angle <em>AOE</em>, which would make a lot more sense!! But that is not what they actually wrote, and I am 99% certain since I read the question about 4 or 5 times, scratching my head. Eventually, after about 2 or 3 minutes of perplexity and shock, I went with my instinct and assumed that ETS meant "90" as the answer.</p>
<p>Idiots.</p>
<p>Thoughts? Anyone??</p>
<p>igot 90 too 40+50</p>
<p>godot, i think that is what screwed me up too. hopefully CB recognizes this and curves accordingly.</p>
<p>Godot, you are correct in that the problem was...defective. At any rate, I am sure that they will accept 90 degrees as the answer, unless there is some sort of trickery that is even more deeply hidden in the problem, which I doubt.</p>
<p>I got 90 too but I didn't see anything wrong with the problem...Whatever.</p>
<p>there wasn't anything wrong with the problem, if you drew it out, it worked.</p>
<p>there was this one problem....about the sum of 11 integers equaling 0...what is the least number of POSITIVE integers for this to occur....i thought it was 1....but now i'm a lil self doubting myself..does anyone remebr it clearly and what they put down? thanks!</p>
<p>thats what i said too. cuz it didn't limit any of them except that they had to be integers.</p>