<p>@mdillon4 f(x)-1 means you shift the graph down one unit. When it shifts down, the graph hits the x-axis 4 times when you look at the -2<x<2 interval. </p>
<p>it wasnt about the first paragraph. there is one part of the passage that describes green chemistry outlines. i put practical uses. is this correct?</p>
<p>And are you sure it was fundamentally wrongheaded? What about the theoretically classical one?</p>
<p>The January SAT math was like -1 760</p>
<p>i need a 2300+ because my gpa aint looking good and i need a pretty good scholarship to go to college T.T @mizejonathan17 and @fireonice 1 omission on math will most likely be a 780 sadly…</p>
<p>i agree that it was reasonable for the blockbuster question. passage two author put a qualification in his essay so it is not a direct contradiction. The disagreement between the two passages is that author 1 believes that blockbusters were conceived with money as the main goal. author 2 said no.</p>
<p>@swimguy you mean excessively tradional? i put that but i think thats wrong</p>
<p>@lolokcollege I’m in the exact same position right now. I desperately need a 2300+, because my un-weighted GPA is trash. I’m pretty sure I’ll probably get around 2330 though </p>
<p>@mizejonathan17 what is your gpa? define “trash”</p>
<p>@mizejonathan17 dude thats freaking awesome! congrats! these two weeks are going to mental torture…christmas is gonna be trash lol</p>
<p>@swimguy1234 I’m not even sure what theoretically classical means but it definitely wasn’t an answer choice…
I’m pretty sure the only answer that clearly showed that the two sides were </p>
<p>i dont remember half of the answers i put down for CR…so im praying that i didnt fck up</p>
<p>@jdchriss The passages differed in that passage 1 days blockbusters are preconceived; business executives have the purpose/motive of creating blockbusters and that’s the key to success. Whereas passage 2 says blockbusters are NOT preconceived; they always have an artistic and non-economic notion in mind going in. I think they’re very contradictory.</p>
<p>The star wars one was preconceived. the answer had that word in it. right?</p>
<p>one was preconceived while the other was based on personal something something</p>
<p>excessively traditional that’s it… I was pretty confident about that one…</p>
<p>fundamentally wrongheaded means fundamentally misguided. There’s no way that’s wrong. </p>
<p>There were very few of these kind of errors in writing right: Nervous about next week, my test was approaching soon.</p>
<p>Where is everyone on here trying to get into college? I am trying for West Point and if I could get in the 1400s, I would be in for sure.</p>
<p>@schoolisfunforme </p>
<p>“wait guys for the one with fundamentally wrongheaded. that could also be reasonable because the passage did say that its not like business owners didn’t try. fundamentally wrongheaded is too extreme.”</p>
<p>1) why is extreme bad? i get that sat tip givers say to be weary of extreme descriptions. sure, as a generality. however, extremeness does not equal wrong. wrong equals wrong. perhaps extreme is more often than not wrong, but they’re not the same thing. </p>
<p>2) yes, the big shots tried to make formula hits. it didn’t work.multiple examples are cited.</p>
<p>3) are you exactly sure what “fundamentally wrongheaded” means?</p>
<p>it’s really not that extreme. </p>
<p>the question asked how passage 2 author would describe the views of the big shots expressed in certain lines of passage 1. the author in passage 2 spent a hell of a time explaining how these pre-packed “blockbusters” don’t make the big bucks. ergo, the view of the big shots that pumping them out for money is fundamentally wrongheaded. </p>