<p>idk…i think it would be like 800 800 800 790 770 or something</p>
<p>I’ll bet -3 is 800,-4 is 770 (medium-hard test according to erikthered i’ll bet)</p>
<p>o.O whos erikthered</p>
<p>I’m guessing I missed:
(trading / sharing land with neighbors)
(energy guy / recycling workshops)
(inclusive…selective / forthright…relevant)
(objective…instructive)
(2-3 photog questions)</p>
<p>Think that’s a 720-730?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf[/url]”>http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf</a></p>
<p>does 1 math wrong automaticlly drop u to 770? =[ got some ez math problem wrong ><</p>
<p>Likely:: 800 800 800 790 770 760 740 730 720 700
MAYBE: 800 800 800 800 780 770 750 740 720 710
||||||||| -0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | -4 | -5 | -6 | -7 | -8 | -9</p>
<p>-1 on M is probably 770/780 because it was pretty easy.
800 is possible but Ihighly doubt it</p>
<p>kk u guys remember any writing questions?!?</p>
<p>the speed of sound one. Idk whether its no error or D. I put D because it seemed redundant:</p>
<p>Because yada yada, the speed of sound in air is greater than (that of sound) in water.</p>
<p>Something like “it is” would have fixed it much more clearly.</p>
<p>Has anyone ever succeeded in arguing a question with the college board? Do they strike it from the test? This test was rife with ambiguity, IMO.</p>
<p>Objection to stories</p>
<p>for this one…what was the question…I don’t remember putting that down. What was the question and any other answer choices? anyone?</p>
<p>This is a critical reading thread, dont talk about others :o</p>
<p>People have succeeded, but it is unlikely. And I’m not sure ambiguity is grounds for eliminating questions.</p>
<p>Huh? Can anyone answer my question?</p>
<p>I put philosophy for that question. I remember thinking about it during the test. If someone can remember the exact reasoning I can explain the answer. I am really confident that it wasn’t methodology.</p>
<p>passage 1 never said anything about guidelines or instructions. it was a philosophy she held about photography.</p>
<p>Guys, do you remember the exact question for the quackery/forestall/humbuggery/elude?
Some guy claimed that some products that couldn’t age were _<strong><em>, although they may _</em></strong> the superficial manifestations of again, they could not touch the process to its core?</p>
<p>Also, for the philosophy one, i put philosophy, because she was outlining a view point and how she believed the photographer should be and react to his/her surroundings. She was not claiming that he should position his camera a certain way or anything like that. She wasn’t describing a method, but more of her own opinion as she expressed in her book. Also, it was a biography wasn’t it? They wouldn’t talk about a method in a biography…</p>
<p>i think there will be a good curve, considering this thread is split on at least 5 of them.</p>
<p>Also, the introduce a phenomenon, is the answer to which passage? I know I put that answer down, I’m trying to justify it now :o</p>
<p>drudgery is something dull, it was saying we should be more comprehensive, and not so selective</p>