<p>yup…wrongheaded doesn’t mean he’s calling them idiots or anything…he just says that they are misguided and not doing things the right way which is 100% correct. That can’t be wrong, so it’s right. </p>
<p>@i2400ezpz It’s about 3.1 un-weighted and 4.1 weighted</p>
<p>I don’t understand that Petroleum question can someone please explain. How is That petroleum reserves are decreasing has worried the government make sense?</p>
<p>The word that is essentially an acceptable abbreviation/contraction of “The fact that…” or “That the…”</p>
<p>@schakrab ok you cant be 100 percent sure…
@froggyfresh there was a qualification in the passage.author saids its not like business owners didn’t try so its reasonable that they’re interested in getting money. im not entirely sure but i think it could be correct. </p>
<p>Can anyone explain the ratio math problem? The answer was 7:4 but I still don’t get it!! I bet it was super easy though:/ I was aiming for a 750 math but I definitely got 2 wrong. Hoping for the best</p>
<p>How many of you guys used Erika Meltzer’s grammar book?</p>
<p>@APScholar I used Erica’s book. Although I didn’t finish it by the last SAT date, it’s very helpful.</p>
<p>@mizejonathan17 What about a person with good GPA but trash SAT?.. like 1700…
Could my GPA make up for a bad sat score?</p>
<p>Does anyone happen to know what information an official score report has? (the one colleges get)</p>
<p>What would 5 wrong and 1 omitted on the math give me? 650 possibly?</p>
<p>The traditionalism vs assimilation question really depends on how you look at it. I put traditional because they are cooking new foods in a traditional way.</p>
<p>more people put wrongheaded so its wrongheaded</p>
<p>@DPattt
I agree with you, but there’s only one right answer for SAT. This isn’t English class.</p>
<p>@DPattt the question asked about the context of that paragraph. its assimilation for sure. i thought that was extremely obvious</p>
<p>@DPattt the question asked about the context of that paragraph. its assimilation for sure. i thought that was extremely obvious</p>
<p>@i2400ezpz </p>
<p>Even in the context of the paragraph, assimilation is a rather extreme word to describe it. Making one dish using new material does not mean the cook has ‘assimilated’ into a new culture. </p>
<p>One could argue, in specifics, that the assimilation is ‘to combine to unfamiliar ideas/items’ so the food is being combined. One could also, along the same lines, argue for traditionalism.</p>
<p>@Woandering what did you put?</p>
<p>Rozin suggests that cuisines also help negotiate the tension between
the omnivore’s neophilia and neophobia. By preparing a novel kind of
food using a familiar complex of flavors — by cooking it with tradi-
tional spices, say, or sauces — the new is rendered familiar, “reducing
the tension of ingestion.” </p>
<p>There’s nothing that mentions a new culture or a accepting something new, which is what assimilation tends to mean. There is however quite a bit about making something foreign, ‘familar’ using ‘traditional’ flavors.</p>
<p>I put traditional, but I do believe it could go either way. Looking at the paragraph, I would still stand by traditionalism. Thinking of the idea as a whole, I would go with assimilation. @i2400ezpz </p>
<p>@Woandering i thought of it as this. the question asked about it in context of the passage, so because it said something new was being created and something was added to something else(a defintion of assimilation), from that it could be reasonably inferred that assimilation is being described here.</p>