<p>yeah, I got disadvantageous as no error</p>
<p>I agree JWs - I’ve never seen a vocab question that couldve gone either way like that.</p>
<p>KoolMaria - Is that the writing question that had “disadvantaged by the new laws…”?</p>
<p>yea there were a lot of poopy questions.</p>
<p>gr … edit 10 char</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the exact wording of the pristine/inaccessible question?</p>
<p>I want to kill that pristine/inaccessible question.</p>
<p>So how did you guys solve the trapezoid ring? I could not figure out how to solve that for the life of me</p>
<p>yes i was talking about the writing</p>
<p>im going to email cb and ask them to severe the entity!!!</p>
<p>for the trap ring, u extend each trapezoid to the center to make it a triangle, the angles were 80 and 80 so the inner one had to be 20. divide 20 into 360 gives you a full circle and 18 which is number of trapz needed</p>
<p>what u all put for the sentence that should be deleted from the writing paragraph correction</p>
<p>wow this is really making me angry anyone who thinks inaccessible makes even remotely any sense is crazy cause it sounds terrible</p>
<p>JWs - some other people, including myself, put freedom from disturbing truths, but I think the burden is viable, although never mentioned/alluded to in the passage.</p>
<p>(n-2)180/n = 160</p>
<p>Echelon, i see those in sparknotes/barrons/kaplins SAT books sometimes but would never think real SAT would contain such a question… </p>
<p>Cb gotta get its stuff together =)</p>
<p>trapezoid ring…the interior angle was 160 and you had to figure out the number of sides that would work for the sum of interior angles</p>
<p>yeah that’s the one Echelon. It was passive voice the SAT doesn’t care about being passive.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I went with “inaccessible/thwarted” and am now beginning to realize how atrocious that question was!</p>
<p>Guh, I had 160 as the angle but didnt remember any formulas to go with that. So I was drawing it as best as I could. Ha.</p>
<p>For the trapezoid question, I found the exterior angle of one “side” (20 degrees), then use the rule for regular polygons, that all exterior angles = 360.
360/20 = 18.</p>
<p>no dont do that, just extend the trapezoids into triangles, its more fun, intuitive, and less lame. 
:)</p>
<p>sratma, inaccessible was not bogus, there was some merit to both arguments. That is why those two choices were heatedly debated.</p>