anyone have section 2 writing experimental

<p>does anyone definitively know whether section 2 or sections 5 was experimental...i found section 2 harder but 5 closer to CB tests</p>

<p>I had that too, I also agree with you that the fifth was more CB blue book quality</p>

<p>yeah i had the experimental writing....i had the experimental writing on the March SAT as well.....</p>

<p>i found the second one a lot easier, so that was probably the experimental</p>

<p>That's damn odd...I'm hoping section 5 is the experimental, because I felt it was a lot harder than section 2. I breezed through section 2, but was a lot less confident about section 5. (I did finish section 5 five minutes faster than section 2, though.)</p>

<p>Why do you think that the second is experimental, if it is easier??</p>

<p>Because as BroadwayWannabe said, it's likely the experimental will be easier. However, seeing as everyone found the first writing section harder, maybe I stand a chance...</p>

<p>Hmm.... I always had thought that the experimental was more difficult</p>

<p>when does college board post
which sections are experimental or not</p>

<p>Did anyone notice the error in Question 7 of Section 2?</p>

<p>The intended right answer choice (I think C) repeated a part of the problem that was NOT underlined, thus making it a wrong answer choice. It was something like "Investors know that in order to make money they must be prepared to accept big losses." The underlined portion ended with "accept." However, answer choice C included "big losses" in the correction, so the new sentence would read "Investors know that in order to make money they must be prepared to accept big losses big losses."</p>

<p>I work for a test preparation company and recently collaborated on the team that wrote the writing portion of our course for the New SAT. Section 5 had typical errors, and seemed to hit on every major one that we cover in class. Section 2 had random errors, many which were obscure and rarely seen on the test.</p>

<p>These two factors lead me to believe Section 2 was experimental.</p>

<p>Yeah I concur with you Spartyon;
Please let that be true</p>