<p>At erick: it was asking for the missing variable. Sorry =(</p>
<p>Which math question had the answer 2k?</p>
<p>Also, i’m not sure about the writing question about the Romans abandoning Britain. Answer A) had a conjunction before a comma, which is wrong</p>
<p>If you looked at the sentence, it went something like "The Romans founded so and so city but, finding that something or other etc., eventually abandoned it.</p>
<p>If you take out the middle of the sentence, it’s “The Romans founded so and so city but eventually abandoned it.”</p>
<p>That one I was unsure about, but I thought A was the best choice.</p>
<p>I actually thought the practice test was harder. I scored a 2120 on that, and missed 3 math questions, but on the actual PSAT I missed 1 M, 1-2 W (depending on the answer to the question about the Romans). That estimate is based on what answers have been posted up here, not including careless gridding in errors/bubbling in wrong bubbles, which has happened to me before.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, can anyone estimate my score for these two sets?
M: -1 on free response
WS: -2</p>
<p>M: -2, (-1 free response and -1 multiple choice)
CR: -1
WS: -2</p>
<p>I used the psat score converter for 2007 and apparently i got around 207ish. Not sure how this will change this year</p>
<p>1st: I’m going to go ahead and say 77 for M, 80 for CR, and 73 WS. (230 total)<– very impressive.</p>
<p>2nd: 74 for M, 78 CR, and 73 WS. (225 total)<---- Even still, very impressive.</p>
<p>By the way, does anyone know if form W has a different scale than form S? I don’t think so right?</p>
<p>@basenne, thanks! I live in California, so the NMSQT cut-off is fairly high (e.g., it was 219 last year). I’m hoping the guesstimate in that 225-230 range is accurate so I have a sort of buffer for in case I missed more questions than in my worst-case scenario.</p>
<p>^^Form W (or Form S, depending on your point of view) definitely has a different curve.</p>
<p>i fked up hard. 2 wrong math 2 wrong FR
2-3 wrong CR
3-4 wrong w</p>
<p>what’s that brin me?</p>
<p>69(M) + 75(CR) + 70(W) = 214</p>
<p>Keep in mind for that I used the low ends of your ranges… -3CR and -4W</p>
<p>for that one math question “how many x’s f(x)=g(x) if g(x)=(3/5)x” what’d you get? I got none.</p>
<p>■■■… im 5 points off my states cut off for this year.</p>
<p>and i put none too… ppl here insist its 2 but i don’t get where they get that reasoning from… if you plug in the x values into that, none of them correspond.</p>
<p>Its 2. You have to draw it. DUH.</p>
<p>crap. so i missed a grid-in, skipped the venn problem, and missed the function intersection. whats that on the math section?</p>
<p>I think what you did was just plugged in integer values of x (e.g., x=1, x=2, x=3)</p>
<p>You have to remember that even though the x values may not correspond, other points that aren’t integer x values might correspond.
The best way is to draw the line and see if it intersects, even if the intersection points don’t occur at integer values of x.</p>
<p>are we sure that one answer to the reality television question set isn’t the “corrupt legislature” one?</p>
<p>Most posters have concurred that the answer is the “antisocial children” one.</p>
<p>The scientists’ conjectures about very complicated issues lead to people believing more in superstition etc. because they can’t really understand complicated science and therefore they associate the two.</p>
<p>This is related to how a school can try to teach kids to be nice etc. (like scientists try to educate people about their theories) but students become antisocial (like people can’t understand the science and so they think the opposite side of the spectrum, i.e. superstition, is more accurate)</p>
<p>What was the corrupt legislature analogy?</p>
<p>it was along the lines of “legislators attempt to pass anti-corruption legislature but are thwarted by corrupt legislators within their ranks”</p>
<p>I’d say that the reason that isn’t the answer is that the scientists and laypersons are two different groups.
The legislature analogy would indicate that other scientists are promoting psuedo-science and thwarting the efforts of good scientists to outlaw pseudo-science.</p>