<p>seems strange that they would even put x<2 as an answer choice. i mean, it didnt come down to much reasoning at all, just whether or not you thought 2 was inside the shaded region.</p>
<p>The whole June SAT was weird. This question was stupid, every single long passage was a personal narrative, and a lot of the yellow stone and vandalism questions were funky.</p>
<p>I put none as well, and agree with you. But assuming some obscure mathematical definition of interior does not include border lines, then how is y>x^2. I would like to echo the sentiments which have been expressed so many times on this thread: This question is <em>(&#(</em>&#@*($&</p>
<p>how could y be greater than x2 when the equation was y = x^2</p>
<p>It was looking at the area between y=x^2 and y=4. I think the whole debate is predicated on the inclusion of the line into the area.</p>
<p>Could someone give the correct, actual wording of the question? When the SAT says between, they mean greater than/less than, not greater than and equal to/less than and equal too. The list of integers between 2 and 11 is 3-10, not 2-11, for example. If it said interior, that implies between, which would mean the lines are not included, II and III are right, and thus A was the right answer.</p>
<p>Can someone explain how y>x^2?</p>
<p>you have four points at (-1,1), (1,1), (1,-1), and (-1,-1), and they are connected with four line segments to form a square. you are asked to find the area inside the square (the interior area). how do you do it? is the area of the square different from the area inside the square? is .999… not equal to one in this case, despite there being no number in between .999… and 1? these are the kinds of controversies this question begets…</p>
<p>JJJJ, along the parabola, every point has y being equal to x^2. if we go anywhere in the shaded region (assuming interior denotes none of the points along the parabola), then we move upwards in the y direction. thus, y goes up while the x values stay the same, so any point will have y>x^2. this is not true if the interior includes the lines…</p>
<p>100% it was II and III</p>
<p>The fact is, there is no way to solve this without Calculus. For Sophomores like me who aren’t offered Calculus until next year, and the majority of Juniors and Seniors who have never and most likely never will take Calculus, this is an ambiguous question. The SAT only covers up to Algebra 2. The question should be thrown out.</p>
<p>A.
SAT Math just tests up to Algebra 2 level of knowledge. I think those of you who put B probably over-analyzed the question.</p>
<p>the real discrepancy here is not between what level of math this is, but instead on what side CB is on the .9999999999999999 repeating =1 issue</p>
<p>[Polymathematics:</a> No, I’m Sorry, It Does.](<a href=“http://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html]Polymathematics:”>http://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html)</p>
<p>I assumed that .999999999999 was not equal to 1 in the eyes of CB, and in this way the answer must be II and III</p>
<p>However if CB accepts that .999 repeating =1 then the answer should be none</p>
<p>and Godfather why do you need calculus to solve this issue?</p>
<p>or maybe its because you are a sophomore that hasn’t taken calculus that you think you need calculus for this problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does .999 repeating equal 1? Let’s use our Algebra II knowledge to solve that. . . Oh wait a minute, Algebra II never teaches that. Furthermore, there is NO answer to that problem. In some aspects, .999 repeating IS equal to 1, and in some aspects it’s not. </p>
<p>For this particular problem I asked my PreCalc teacher, and we discussed it for a while, (I advocating B, he advocating A), after which time he told me that with Calculus, you could prove that the answer is A. I defy anyone here to prove that the answer is A using Algebra II.</p>
<p>I chose E. It’s amazing what a time limit can do to you. You can see the -2<x<0, but you don’t realize that X can be negative and that X*Y can be indeed less than 0. </p>
<p>Someone look at this though(not completely sure if it relates, but let’s try). Are we debating whether the line is contained within that filled in space? IF you have an open circle on any point of a line, it means that it doesn’t exist at the point, right? I’m still a little confused on what we’re debating(I know the question, but I need the answer choices again).</p>
<p>^^ I know EXACTLY how you feel. I chose E also (what an idiot I am ?!), but it was mainly because of time. I spent too long on that question and waayyy over-analyzed it. I couldn’t decide if the line counted or not or anything. Bad question!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well apparently u were able to at least grasp a concept that your algebra allegedly did not prepare you for. That concept was a bit of a stretch though, something not needed at all to solve this problem, and only needed to second guess the answer.</p>
<p>and in this case, since there was a distinct restriction (the interior), .999 cannot equal one, in which case an inequality and some logic which im sure u learned how to set up in middle school could be used</p>
<p>something simple, like for y=x^2, y=4 cannot occur if the domain of x is -2>x>2 or w/e it was. The thing to note here is that there are no greater than or equal signs, just greater than signs because of CB’s use of the definition interior.</p>
<p>and as for your pre calc teacher, he/she was probably describing limits,and trying to sound highly intelligent at the same time.</p>
<p>It is true that limits are the basis of calculus and they can prove II and III for this problem quite quickly, but as i have shown above, they are not needed.</p>
<p>If you need me to elaborate more post the problem, i can’t remember it, just my thought process.</p>
<p>it seems it is being labeled as a bad question by people that did not understand the definition of “interior”. While this may have been slightly ambiguous (lets be honest many of CB’s questions are), as another poster pointed out, if CB bothered to mention the word interior, it was probably for a restrictive purpose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or (and sorry to disagree with your condescension here), it was labeled as a bad question, because the definition of “interior,” when applied to a lot of math, does not actually mean interior. For example, if you contend that the interior excludes the line y=4, then you also contend that there is something to be excluded, despite the fact that lines have no width. </p>
<p>I agree that the purpose for them using the word “interior” was to indicate that they did not want the line y=4 included. I’m not arguing that they wanted it included.</p>
<p>There is a paradox here: Lines have no width, yet excluding them changes what points are included in the graph. This is NOT an Algebra concept, this is not a Geometry concept, this is not any concept that was tested on any other SAT question (as far as I know) ever. This is a Calculus concept, and so should not have been tested.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Allegedly?” Let’s be serious here, I just said I am taking PreCalc. . . .</p>
<p>Ok, so I answered A… but after some thought, I might think its B now…</p>
<p>Heres the thing, if we assume the line is not counted, then we all agree that III is right, also we all agree I was obviously false. However, since there was not way to answer JUST III, only II and III, I answered A by process of elimination. </p>
<p>BUT, if you plug in very small values of X, such as .5, y=.25, which is not bigger than x. So somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isnt this undeniable proof of B? I understand that x=.5 y=.25 would be ON the line, but if you go up .1, then you get to a point such as x=.5, y=.35, which still doesnt work…</p>
<p>So yeah… responses?</p>
<p>EXACTLY…by process of elimination the answer is II and III. you don’t even need calculus for this problem</p>
<p>Uhhh… thats not what I meant…</p>
<p>“BUT, if you plug in very small values of X, such as .5, y=.25, which is not bigger than x. So somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isnt this undeniable proof of B? I understand that x=.5 y=.25 would be ON the line, but if you go up .1, then you get to a point such as x=.5, y=.35, which still doesnt work…”</p>