<p>Yeah, the answer for the one about the sweet sounding voice was “mellifluousness”</p>
<p>irrelevant |iˈreləvənt|
adjective
not connected with or relevant to something.</p>
<h2>Ergo, not the point.</h2>
<p>It’s relevant, it’s just not the point. It’s about the same thing, making it connected to the topic. There just wasn’t use to the research.</p>
<p>And what was this an answer to? “scientists doubt the public would appreciate the process”</p>
<p>I don’t remember that answer either</p>
<p>the SAT is curved right?</p>
<p>Yeah, but I’m suddenly doing a lot worst than I thought I had done on the CR, and much worse than I did on BB…anybody have an idea what 2 omits and 4-5 wrong would get me? ****…</p>
<p>For the Mark Twain one I put profound and something about a metaphor.</p>
<p>Did everyone else get a CR for the equating also?</p>
<p>As others have said, it’s connected to the subject in general. However, the author’s point was that they were changing in a different way, such as becoming consumers at very young ages.</p>
<p>Did anyone else put for the Indian writer tht he shifted from “doubt to pride” or something like that? I think it was A</p>
<p>the answer to the sweet sounding voice was NOT mellifluousness. I don’t care what everyone says!</p>
<p>After reading this thread, I’m very worried about my CR score. CR is usually pretty easy for me but this time I felt like crying. Maybe because of the additional experimental section.<br>
Does anyone remember the question for the guilt/compunction one? I don’t remember.</p>
<p>Melliflous: 1 : having a smooth rich flow <a mellifluous=“” voice=“”></a></p><a mellifluous=“” voice=“”>
<p>Yea, I mean who cares what Merrian-Webster says! All those dictionary writers are morons.</p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
</a>
<p>yepp because to me, joyous means sad ephemeral means permanent.</p>
<p>For guilt/compunction, it was the guy had sense of BLANK and therefore had no BLANK about leaving his friends behind. And Zam, I don’t think doubt in his work to pride in his work was the right answer. It was more about how he started to appreciate the challenge of writing, and that programming seemed easy in comparison.</p>
<p>thanks theperson.</p>
<p>Did anyone get a passage on things of the past being valuable in the future?
Or was it experimental. I’m hoping it wasn’t,</p>
<p>wow ppl here are really concerned about math… im really uncertain about the critical reading. i thought the indian guy who became a writer was really hard 
the television violence one was pretty hard too
btw ppl… what did you guys put for the question about the museum thing… one question was like why did the author italicize probably and stuff like that… was it to highlight it’s role as a qualifier?
and the next question was like how would the museum curator of passage 2 respond to the woman in passage 1?
i thought it was either predictable given how science was usually presented or disappointed since a lot of effort is put in to put up an exhibit</p>
<p>That was not experimental.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Real section! And it was really enjoyable, too. Haha. I liked that one.</p>
<p>Did anyone get the section on the chinese painter??</p>