<p>@kylelee you aren’t alone there. I truly could not grasp the 1st passage of the photography one at all, maybe because the previous math section was haunting me, or simply because it was hard. The 2nd passage was much easier. I thought the answers for that passage kind of stuck out though. There was usually only one question that sounded right.</p>
<p>As for your question, I now remember I put “Future social changes” for that. I think the answer to the common belief was something like “Photographers can change skeptics mind to see social injustice”. Trying to remember more from photography so I can add it to the consolidated answers list, but I can’t remember any.</p>
<p>for the photographers it was what did such and such, such and such,and such would all agree to?</p>
<p>I put for the answer it was something like photographs can be used for good or bad or something to that nature</p>
<p>Also another question was it was asking about the technical skills, and asked what did the author meant by including that? I put an answer that said something about how technical skills weren’t as important as to the experience a photographer would gain</p>
<p>-The motorists find the new laws… They resent the new laws
-What does the author suggest about cyclists, and walkers? They have to share space(or maybe it was lanes?) with the motorists.
-What can be inferred about the discussion of bycicilist lanes? There no general consensus upon the issue.</p>
<p>Photography</p>
<p>What does the author of passage 2 mean by “history”? It refers to future social changes
What did both authors agree upon? That photographers can change skeptics mind to see social injustice.</p>
<p>I remember a couple more answer choices (not answers, just the choices) from the photography passage. Post if you can remember the question for them.</p>
<p>I think the question was “What do both authors agree about photography?”
That it can help bring social groups together (not answer, just a choice)
Another answer choice: “Coerce (not the right word) leaders to make changes”</p>
<p>One question was asking about what the author of passage one, author of passage two, and the guy who talks in the beginning of passage 2 agree upon.</p>
<p>oh there was also one about what in the passage 1 best represent what second author’s description about something is …
I don’t remember exactly what I put… since I don’t even remember the question that well.</p>
<p>As for the “history”
I put written and photographed something… because he was talking about how
photography can be used to create one’s own definition of history??</p>
<p>:( I don’t know… I was very intimidated by that passage.</p>
<p>-What does the author suggest about cyclists, and walkers? They have to share space(or maybe it was lanes?) with the motorists.
-What can be inferred about the discussion of bycicilist lanes? There no general consensus upon the issue.</p>
<p>what were the other choices to these questions? im trying to remember if i put that or something else…</p>
<p>great. the students taking this on Sunday are going to do much better with all this pre-info! shooting yourself (and me too, unfairly) in the foot!</p>
<p>Do any of you guys remember a short paragraph/section about women inventors and a question about a saying (ex: the early bird gets the worm)?/</p>
<p>If so, was that the experimental section (I don’t remember the longer critical reading passage in that section)?
And what was the appropriate saying for the women inventors question?</p>
<p>what were the other answer choices about the two blog passage writers? I don’t remember putting self-effacing something as an answer.</p>
<p>also, in the section about traffic: was the answer to one of the questions “simplification was impossible” or “standardization was needed” or something like those
i put simplification was impossible because right after those sentences it talked about how the things we take for granted today took a LOT of work and time and blahblah</p>
<p>also do we have an answer about quackery?</p>
<p>and was it qualifying a statement or explaining and assertion? i THINk it was qualifying a statement but I think I got it wrong.</p>
<p>^ I don’t think that one is right. I remember in the couple sentences around that line, he was talking about the history that was going to be made. The author was implying a sense of ‘something to come’.</p>
<p>@evil answer was “Traffic lights were standardized”, but I am pretty sure you are talking about another question.
The question you are referring to was about the first driving law “Keep to the right”. I can’t remember the answer for it!</p>
<p>No the passage said something along the lines of “the motorists hated the new laws, and didn’t want them”. I remember an answer choice with pedestrian but since the passage didn’t say anything about it, I didn’t think it was right.</p>
<p>The “Keep to the right” question’s answer was “highlight the lack of traffic laws” or something like that. It was the question that asked why the author included such phrase.</p>
<p>@SAT yeah I know which ones you/re referring to. the streets were disorderly and the lights in morocco and montana meant that stuff had been standardized.
but the one i’m thinking about was different. it was talking about the part of the passage that said things like “a blue light here meant go and there it meant stop and blalhbalah and there were blinking lights and shapes everywhere blabhalbhalh”
and the question was like, why does the author include that part/what does it mean?
and two of the answer choices were “simplification was impossible” and “standardization was needed”
does anybody remember that one?</p>