<p>sugarsweet, the science section was ridiculous, the only reason anyone got a 36 was because he was lucky.</p>
<p>i</p>
<p>dam, I put co-author. Because it said "she and humez wrote blah blah blah, her first book, or something like that. That’s why it was confusing because both of them wrote it but it still said it’s her first book.</p>
<p>Unit Circle one said that it the terminal side of the angle was the graph y = x.</p>
<p>That means if you drew a triangle, the legs would be the same length, thus leading to a reference angle of 45 degrees.</p>
<p>Since the angle was in Q3, it was -rt2/2</p>
<p>everything else i seemed to do pretty well on, but science killed me man… got stuck on some problems/experiments and couldnt finish it. Reading went well, english went well, math was good as well.</p>
<p>same here, i put that they coauthored it and i was actually pretty sure of the answer at the time…i could have sworn u can’t go wrong that they coauthored it because they did, didn’t they??</p>
<p>…now im not so positive on that one…gosh i hate this test</p>
<p>Ehh, so I found the actual passage (although I can’t find it again urgh) and it says they both used innovative researching techniques. I got confused at first too, but if you read carefully it says nothing of them writing the book together, just that Humez and Larson had good research while that other Catherine woman didn’t. She just assumed everything.</p>
<p>for the harriet tubman passage, there was a question that asked about the use of speculative phrases such as “there is evidence to show that,” etc.</p>
<p>two of the answer choices were
insightful
undesirable</p>
<p>i dont remember the other two but i picked insightful… any thoughts?</p>
<p>I’m still think it’s coauthored, because they used a pronoun instead of a name to confuse people. They mentioned TWO people who wrote the book, but it also said it’s Humez’s first book. Gah I hate questions like that.</p>
<p>It was undesirable.</p>
<p>I think.</p>
<p>And it was definetely her first book because the passage specifically said so.</p>
<p>There was a question about a triangle’s points on a parabola and you had to find the area.</p>
<p>I got the right answer (6) but it took me too long because I used Heron’s formula. Was there another, more efficient way to do it?</p>
<p>Indeed, she and Kate Clifford Larson, in her first book, ‘‘Bound for the Promised Land,’’ have both done extensive and imaginative research in local historical sources that tell us almost more than we want to know about the Eastern Shore in the mid-19th century; in the papers of antislavery activists who interacted with Tubman; in the correspondence of an earlier Tubman biographer who in the 1940’s interviewed individuals who had been alive long enough to remember her.</p>
<p>Yeah, it says “her” meaning it’s Larson’s.</p>
<p>what about the last reading passage about traffic? no one has really discussed that one yet</p>
<p>yeah.</p>
<p>you could figure out the base and height by counting over the number of spaces.</p>
<p>then you do base times height over 2.</p>
<p>at least you didn’t spend load of time on the matrix question like i did : (</p>
<p>you count over the number of space to find the base and height.</p>
<p>then do base tmes the height over 2.</p>
<p>at least you didn’t spend loads of time on the matrix question like i did</p>
<p>wow that Larson question is so nit picky, its ridiculous</p>
<p>really? i still think it was co-authored because i thought the “her” was referring to the “she” which refers to Humez, not Larson. iono though. it would be a safer bet to bubble in “co-author” since we DO know that those two people wrote the book.</p>
<p>does anyone remember the question about chaos theory?</p>
<p>well looking at amazon the book is written by Kate Larson.</p>
<p>chaos theory-Letter D i think.-Small things can/may cause big unpredictable outcomes?</p>
<p>circumlocution-wat did u get for the Larson-co-author/first book question?</p>
<p>The chaos theory was something like a small change can cause drastic consequences</p>