<p>would 6-8 wrong on CR be close to 700?</p>
<p>when would i find out? quick google search returned nothing</p>
<p>I would like to know what 6 - 8 wrong on CR would probably be as well.</p>
<p>6-8 wrong would be around the high 60’s I’d say, depending on the curve you might squeak out with a 70.</p>
<p>How harsh do you guys think the curve for writing will be, I still think that “long since lost” is because I think it should be "long lost since</p>
<p>How about 2 - 3 wrong on Writing?</p>
<p>8 wrong is 680</p>
<p>meadow 36 i agree. that phrase was not very clear</p>
<p>Oh, and did we ever settle the “technical chicanery” debate?</p>
<p>I personally found writing about equal to usual, math easier than usual, and CR tougher than usual.</p>
<p>And IMO with the technical chicanery, it had to be the general distrust. Nowhere else in the passage was her fear of technology mentioned. That wasn’t a topic of discussion. The SAT doesn’t ask us to infer things about the people’s character, just to use context clues to gather info. I stick by general distrust 110% :p</p>
<p>And long since lost might sound awkward, but it’s grammatically fine. Long lost since would imply that it has been long long ever since, rather than a long time since it was lost, ya dig?</p>
<p>highhopes, it was the opposite for me and I already got a 800 in 8th grade but already missed one. I have no idea how I got 1981 for that club question…</p>
<p>1a1, can you remind me of the exact question?</p>
<p>It wasn’t fear of technology, but lack of sophistication with it. I thought that it didn’t really say anything about trusting the weatherman.</p>
<p>The question was asking what “technical chicanery” focuses on in the passage about the weatherman.</p>
<p>they did talk about technology though: they talked about the way the weatherman used various maps with different explanations to make his points</p>
<p>But the whole story was about her not liking the new weatherman and preferring the old guy. Her attitude about technology wasn’t relevant to the passage, so the SAT people wouldn’t ask us something that involves making unrelated inferences to the passage… that’s my take anyway.</p>
<p>When they talked about how the weatherman used the map, that was in the same thought as technological chicanery. It’s not like the new weatherman brought a new map with him… she just didn’t like the guy.</p>
<p>^yeah I have to agree with high hopes on the technical chicanery one. </p>
<p>Can you guys answer my question on post #421?</p>
<p>spiral cloud,
although they did talk about technology but not in negative sense. It specifically said in teh last line of the first paragraph that she doubted him…</p>
<p>“they did talk about technology though: they talked about the way the weatherman used various maps with different explanations to make his points”</p>
<p>I was thinking about that, and how something like “storms flowed from his fingers”. I thought she was not as inclined to the new technology.</p>
<p>I don’t remember the flexibility choice, although your arguments sound convincing. Can you remember the exact wording by any chance? I put strength of response.</p>
<p>flexibility certainly makes sense, but strength of reaction is better within the framework of the passage. i guess its one of those. “pick the best answer” rather than “pick the right answer” type questions…</p>
<p>I don’t remember the exact wording but I remember that I originally put strength of response but I later changed it to flexibility of the mind because in the passage they do talk about how great the mind is but never anything about the “strength of the response” so I guess I ruled that one out because there was no direct support for it?</p>
<p>Van_sant, I like your explanation better than mine haha… that makes sense, flexibility wasn’t really the focus of the passage, but the brain’s response mechanisms to visual stimuli was. kinda.</p>