<p>It was to underscore issues that needed to be solved (underscoring is analogous to “highlighting” in case any of you were wondering. It makes perfect sense in the answer choice)</p>
<p>@jman010295 The preceding sentence, if read carefully enough, said that those were old issues.
100% positive</p>
<p>@hanslee0409 1. To offer a solution to his dissatisfaction. 2. If detect subtle evidence was an answer choice, then yes, that was the answer.
100% positive</p>
<p>For the one why he hired him I put something about history. It was talking about doing a lot of work in histroy. But that answer sounds much more sophisticated, and more likely right.</p>
<p>I think that the author was ambivalent not contented
because the last sentence said something along the lines of “i didnt want to go home because i would run into the landlord, but then again I could learn something”</p>
<p>seems like mixed feelings to me…</p>
<p>Another SC:
Penicillan = accidental … favorable</p>
<p>@aag123 you are totally correct. The author was in no way, shape, or form “contented.” Nonchalant, maybe. Contented, no. There is a strong difference between the two. </p>
<p>For that question I rushed and accidentally circled “apprehensive” because I didn’t notice “ambivalent” as an option. **** my life. Bye bye 800.</p>
<p>aag123, i don’t think it mattered, becausse that was experimental. But, I put contended because of that final sentence.</p>
<p>@aag: I did put ambivalent as well, although it seems like most people put contented so I’m not sure…</p>
<p>yes, the writer TRANSCRIBED the celebrity’s remarks</p>
<p>The graveyard girl was not an experimental. I had a writing experimental (two 35-minute sections back to back) but STILL had the graveyard article.</p>
<p>was “underscored need for more car laws” an answer to the same question that had “roads were disorderly” or something like that?
cause i answered disorderly or something like that to a question.</p>
<p>i’m almost positive it was philosophy.</p>
<p>old farms: what was “scientific proof” an answer to?</p>
<p>i think that the one about the passing neighbor o the blog was good description. it wouldn’t be “intrusion” because the first passage talked about a “passing stranger” being invited into the home. that’s not intrusion.</p>
<p>and about the dude being a social engineer. i think that was something about social developments being needed, not that his skills were diverse.</p>
<p>and what was the blog question about self-effacing?</p>
<p>Why did the author add “the only law was to “keep right””? Underscored the need for more car laws.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that is incorrect. It highlighted the lack of laws.</p>
<p>How do the two passages relate? Passage One lays out a philosophy that passage two talks about in detail </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure there was a better answer choice because passage 1 discussed it thoroughly.</p>
<p>i have to disagree with ambivalent on this one as it said that some people might consider having no jobs to be bad in cold blood, but to me, it was not really bad. And it also said though I didn’t want to face Alexander and his swinishness I would be able to gain something in a direct confrontation</p>
<p>Wait, wasnt the grave yard one about the landowner and the police man? Where it talks something bad happening?</p>
<p>@Brotherjames37</p>
<p>it was not experimental
i had 3 reading sections and 4 math</p>
<p>Self effacing was the question about the relationship between the two questions.
In passage 1, the author was self -effacing, while in passage 2 the author ______</p>
<p>and what was the answer?</p>
<p>I put that answer, but SAT100 got something else.</p>
<p>@aag123, nvm. I confused it with the digital music one.</p>
<p>@hanslee I had similar reason for choosing contented. She recognized that other people would see her living situation as bad, but did not share those feelings. </p>
<p>In order for her to be ambivalent she would need to have opposing feelings. When she stated that she wouldn’t mind if she got evicted she did not mean that she would like to be evicted, so there was no conflicting opinion</p>
<p>Content means “in a state of peaceful happiness”</p>
<p>Ambivalent means “Having mixed feelings”</p>
<p>i think it would be hard to say that he was peaceful…as the entire passage was him trying to figure out if its worth going back…and how the lady is sort of captivating while at the same time aloofing</p>
<p>and how the man is a “scoundrel” i think, but at the same time he could “gain from him”</p>
<p>i thinik that just the sheer number of these implies ambivalence</p>
<p>plus basically the entire story was him musing about…and such contemplating usually implies a mix of ideas, which would entail ambivalance</p>