<p>It was “difficulty in spotting small planets”?</p>
<p>can someone explain the somber…wry one to me?
I put the ominous…surprised =(</p>
<p>For the reading survey, I said “describe limitations of survey.” He isn’t disputing the statistics; in fact, I think in one of the paragraphs he said “Despite how skewed Reading Whatever is, the statistics still show…” Or something to that effect.</p>
<p>I’m also fairly certain the lobsters question was acute.</p>
<p>Blah I got perfunctory wrong, joy and exultation</p>
<p>Wait was the question for the limitation/disputing of statistics one?</p>
<p>what about the question that asked "what was wrong with the demographic fact?</p>
<p>was it scope?</p>
<p>verb (used with object), -prised, -pris⋅ing.
- to include or contain: The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.
- to consist of; be composed of: The advisory board comprises six members.
- to form or constitute: Seminars and lectures comprised the day’s activities.
Idiom - be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of: The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores.</p>
<p>so is it “comprised of” or no error?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes, I was unsure about this one. “accuracy of statistics” makes sense a bit because he argued for the last two paragraphs about how the statistics can’t be trusted. But it could also be limitations of a study. I am unsure. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>didn’t the passage also say that the survey did explore a broad scope of questions and therefore the survey wasn’t limited but rather inaccurate because of the different individual characteristics in literature of each country like Swedan (has a lower mean level of reading)</p>
<p>I’m dead sure it was limitations of statistics because there was a paragraph where the author practically restated some of the stats from the first passage and said that they were generally accurate. Then, he went on to talk about how, despite their accuracy, the statistics don’t really represent or portray the scope of the nation as a whole and etc.</p>
<p>can someone explain the somber…wry one to me?
I put the ominous…surprised =(</p>
<p>for the limitations/accuracy question i put he was disputing the accuracy because he goes on to say that the stats are coarse and what not, but know i can see why it could be limitations.</p>
<p>@Protagonizer
I said somber… wry because I thought the second passage didn’t have a surprised tone at all. I think he was implying that there will always be such “alarmist” (was that the right answer?) reports, so he wasn’t surprised another one had been published. I think it might have been wry, in some definition of that word:</p>
<p>1.</p>
<pre><code> Dryly humorous, often with a touch of irony.
</code></pre>
<p>2.</p>
<pre><code> Temporarily twisted in an expression of distaste or displeasure: made a wry face.
</code></pre>
<p>3.</p>
<pre><code> Abnormally twisted or bent to one side; crooked: a wry nose.
</code></pre>
<p>4.</p>
<pre><code> Being at variance with what is right, proper, or suitable; perverse.
</code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I put. Of course, I could be wrong.</p>
<p>what about the question that asked "what was wrong with the demographic fact?</p>
<p>was it scope? ?</p>
<p>I do not think the limitations is correct as he states that the statistics are flawed not because the study itself is inaccurate but to other cultural reasons (like the increased newspaper reading). So the study itself is accurate in what it is intended to find, but the societal factors contribute to the flawed accuracy of the study in regards to examining the literacy trends in the US.</p>
<p>I think it was limited in that the broad scope of it wasn’t in-depth enough; it didn’t take into account the idiosyncrasies of reading. I think it was accurate enough because the scope was wide enough, but I may be wrong.</p>
<p>oh… nevermind. </p>
<p>I see my error</p>
<p>I read Y and Z are > 0</p>
<p>but it’s Y*Z>0</p>
<p>wow…</p>
<p>in the reading problem, didn’t the author of passage two restate the statistics from Passage 1 because he wanted to disprove how the statistics in Passage 1 were inaccurate?</p>
<p>I put scope.</p>
<p>Hahah i feel like there were a bunch of recurring words on the PSAT that were also on the SAT on saturday. </p>
<p>like rustic
and wry
if i remember correctly</p>
<p>i put scope</p>
<p>I know this isn’t exactly the place to ask, but I think I’d be likely to get a quick answer here… Do any of you guys have any suggestions for books to use for (specifically) PSAT studying? I’ll have to study some next year, going for a 230+. I know there are quite a few SAT books, and I can find info on those, but I rarely see info on PSAT books.</p>