<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you get that from? A fancy prep book? 
Sure they do tell that, but I’ve had plenty of cases in which the answers were the most extreme ones. You cannot apply such generalizations. If it is supported by the passage, it can be the most/least extreme answer.</p>
<p>Wait, why was f(1) + f(-1) = 120?? </p>
<p>Wasn’t it like… a + c + a + c = 2a + 2c. Did they say that a+c = 60?</p>
<p>Also, </p>
<p>“One distinguished scientist was so indignantly incredulous that he seized Galambos by the shoulders and shook him while complaining that we could not possibly mean such an outrageous suggestion. Radar and sonar were still highly classified developments in military technology, and the notion that bats might do anything even remotely analogous to the latest trumps of electron engineering struck most people not only as implausible but emotionally repugnant.”</p>
<p>If this doesn’t sound incensed, what does…</p>
<p>@userinvalid it’s like 8(a+c)= 8*15=120
@maxyend 2000 is for the pie chart 15% is 300 i rmb</p>
<p>@UserInvalid, I can’t remember the specifics of the question, but the unknowns in the equation I got were “cancelled out”. That’s all I can recall.</p>
<p>@ColdFlame, think about the issue. Why would that scientist feel angry at a certain theory which challenges an established one? I think that his response showed that he felt the proposed theory was ridiculous. I agree with Maxyend on this one.</p>
<p>@Maxyend, while I think “disbelief” would definitely work, the artist didn’t strike me as one who had any reason to be “suspicious” of her husband. I had to choose between those two options and in the end, the one which had “suspicious” in it felt more wrong. </p>
<p>Yeah, the writing section was the experimental one. There were two 35-question sections.</p>
<p>Coldflame, note the words ‘incredulous’ and ‘struck most people not only as implausible…’</p>
<p>@bnjmnkrs</p>
<p>Paranoia was the answer to this sentence about a dictator who was suspicious of everyone I believe!</p>
<p>Stodgy and quirky, I don’t exactly remember but I put it in I know.</p>
<p>User22, based on this test’s performance.</p>
<p>IT was 120, because it was f(1) + f(-1)
which is
(4a(1)^2 - (1)b + 4c) + (4a(-1)^2 - (-1)b + 4c)
=> 4a - b + 4c + 4a +b + 4c
=> 4(a+c) - b + 4(a+c) +b
=> 4(15) + 4(15)
=> 60 + 60
= 120</p>
<p>f(1)+f(-1)=4a-b+4c+4a+b+4c=8a+8c=8*15=120</p>
<p>“That she should choose to write about independent women was not surprising, as she is …feminist…”</p>
<p>So this is the experimental right?</p>
<p>What did you guys get for that math question where there was like a grid and you had to find the number of combinations for which there would be only cross in every row?</p>
<p>I got 27, and I double checked. But people are getting 6 (by P&C 3 * 2)
But shouldn’t it be 27?</p>
<p>@sombre </p>
<p>‘Suspicious’ also means questionable, or disbelieving - given that during the entire passage she is down on herself and short of confidence, it’s hard to imagine that she would immediately embrace praise - although the answer you gave is also plausible</p>
<p>@aphrodite, I got 6 as well.</p>
<p>it’s just 3! (factorial)</p>
<p>@ aphrodite95
it should be 6. pretty sure. You’d better recall again and see if there are something repetitive</p>
<p>@Sombre & bnjmnkrs</p>
<p>I agree with both of you, it could be either. Both have a case.</p>
<p>“One distinguished scientist was so indignantly incredulous that he seized Galambos by the shoulders and shook him while complaining that we could not possibly mean such an outrageous suggestion. Radar and sonar were still highly classified developments in military technology, and the notion that bats might do anything even remotely analogous to the latest trumps of electron engineering struck most people not only as implausible but emotionally repugnant.”</p>
<p>“emotionally repugnant” “indignant” “complaining” “seized” “shook” all words associated with anger</p>
<p>Oh, and are we actually allowed to discuss this?</p>
<p>From what I know, we can 24 hours after the test. Or something. Other people have claimed that we just aren’t allowed to. Some talk about scores getting cancelled or whatever. I didn’t bother checking.</p>
<p>@coldflame
i’d like to believe so…</p>
<p>After reading that part of the passage again in the post by Coldflame,</p>
<p>Im pretty sure its incensed</p>
<p>@coldflame</p>
<p>He was not ‘indignant’ - he was ‘indignantly incredulous’ - the word ‘indignant’ was only used to describe the scale of his incredulity - or disbelief.</p>
<p>Shaking somebody is not consistent with extreme anger, nor is finding something repugnant, nor is complaining. Not only that, but this is a scientist, talking to a colleague, at a scientific conference - which implies that the shaking wasn’t a violent, aggresive kind of shaking.</p>
<p>But anyway, we’ll see when people get their detailed score reports with right and wrong answers, I guess.</p>
<p>Look, keyword here is “comprehend.” He CLEARLY comprehends it, but he doesn’t BELIEVE it. He comprehends it and is angered by it. Uncomprehending is just wrong.</p>