<p>Does anyone know the math curve for the Nov. 2010 SAT?</p>
<p>and it was ‘confound.’</p>
<p>Why is ‘idyllic…exhaustive’ not the answer??? Why is it ‘quiescent…exacting’??</p>
<p>@wlsnehf</p>
<p>exhaustive is a misleading word. go look it up.</p>
<p>Exhaustive = thorough
Exhaustive preparation = thorough preparation</p>
<p>Miasanmia, prepare yourself for a low score. It is confound, not invoke. </p>
<p>Quiescant…Exacting is right though.</p>
<p>Don’t expect the curves to be the same as nov. 2010, even if it was the same test. I’m pretty sure curves are based on performance on the day.</p>
<p>Maxyend, for the last question about bats, what was the answer? a, b, c, d, or e?</p>
<p>maxyend
you really believe all of your answers are correct dont you? how naive. you flunked the questions on the bat passage, but this one is pretty obvious. confound doesn’t even come close to what the word should be. I dont want to develop any enmity with you, but I think you shouldn’t expect too much from your scores either.</p>
<p>@Miasanmia</p>
<p>in·voke/inˈvōk/
Verb:<br>
Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.
Call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration.
Synonyms:<br>
call - appeal</p>
<p>Do you not see how that doesn’t make sense in the sentence?</p>
<p>Confound:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Clinical</a> Evidence, Searching Tidbits, and Other Minutiae: Confounding](<a href=“http://clinicalevidence.blogspot.nl/2008/08/confounding.html]Clinical”>Clinical Evidence, Searching Tidbits, and Other Minutiae: Confounding)</p>
<p>Please stop embarrassing yourself like this.</p>
<p>@bnjmnkrs What was the question again?</p>
<p>Was there the word “refute” in any option? I guess I chose something like “refute”, mas I cant remember correctly.</p>
<p>@maxyend</p>
<p>“Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.” This is the main gist. In the question, it appeals the previous research in support of the current study. </p>
<p>Also, if you want to support your case, find a better definition of confounding next time. If someone didn’t know what was going on, he or she would think you were siding with me. Your definition doesn’t fit the question at all. </p>
<p>i understand it is very hard for you to admit that you’re wrong-- as with on the bat passages.</p>
<p>I can’t remember the exact question, but two of the answers were ‘humans can see effortlessly’ and ‘humans can relate more with sighted animals’ - if I recall correctly I put in ‘b’ - but I was pressed for time and can’t remember which answer ‘b’ corresponds to.</p>
<p>@vicbrasil
refute was not in the options. if it was this little fiasco here wouldn’t be taking place.</p>
<p>are you talking about “exhaustive” or “quiescent” for the retired supreme court judge? (or sth like that"</p>
<p>it was definitely quiescent and exacting. idyllic and exhaustive are not opposite of each other and dont fit as well</p>
<p>Miasanmia, so far you have these wrong</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answers to those were "confound and “exemplary skill”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is wrong, it is “humans can naturally and effortlessly see” and the metaphor is showing the similarities between humans sensing and bats sensing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>was right but</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you got it wrong again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another mistake, it was “qualifying and enforcing”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer was overblown, so you have another one wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You obviously aren’t very good at critical reading, because the passages said very different things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another one of your answers, this one is one of the ones we aren’t sure about, but the fact that you agree with incensed really gives me hope.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>more mistakes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have just given you a link describing the use of the word confound in the exact same context as in the question. Invoke can’t even work with the sentence. Why are you arguing? “Appealing to” is not the same as “to appeal”. “appealing to previous evidence” would be calling on it to check your findings, but the second part of the sentence went on to say that it “brought up and questioned theories never before questioned” or something along those lines.</p>
<p>Are you just trying to mess with us, or are you actually serious?</p>
<p>@bnjmnkrs</p>
<p>sorry, I really can’t remember what letter it was.</p>
<p>for the two brothers take different approaches to express themselves through the piano QUESTION</p>
<p>do you remember the other answer choices 
?
just don’t rmbr which answer I selected. I think if I see the answer choices, I’ll recognize…</p>
<p>Oh and for the question in which the answer was “OVERBLOWN”</p>
<p>Could someone be so kind as to remind me what the question was? and the answer choices too?</p>
<p>Thanks so much!</p>
<p>The brothers one, the exact answer was something like “the brothers took different approaches with different results”.</p>
<p>the overblown answer was to the question of what the author of passage 2 would say about the claims in passage 1 in the global warming CR section.</p>