Official June Math IIC Discussion!

[CC_Admin]

<p>If I’m not mistaken, that’s the right answer. The answer was the negation of the original statement, and if the original was x<3t, then you’re right.</p>

[DmctNY8]

<p>Why did they pick t? t, y, x to me usually says parametric. It would have been far easier if they had picked say r</p>

[upenn987]

<p>does anyone remember the answer to the jeans one…and if so how did you guys get it?</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>The answer to the jeans problem was 30%.</p>

<p>This is an explanation from an earlier poster:</p>

<p>

Ok, lets say for example that the orginal supply of jeans that she bought were 8 jeans, and she paid 1.00 for them each. So initially, she spent 8.00</p>

<p>1/2 was sold at regular price, which was 60% more than what she had paid, therefore, she sold 1/2 or 4 of them at (1.00)(1+6%)=1.6.</p>

<p>1/4 was sold at 25% off the regular price, (not to be confused with the initial price) so 25% off of the 1.6. (1.6)(.25)=.4 so subtract .4 from the regular price, which is 1.2. So 1/4, or 2 jeans, were sold at 1.2</p>

<p>1/4 was sold at 50% off the regular price, so 50% off of the 1.6. (1.6)(.5)=.8 so subtract .8 from the regular price, which is .8. So 1/4, or 2 jeans, were sold at .8</p>

<p>2(.8)+2(1.2)+4(1.6)=10.4</p>

<p>If she spend 8 initially, she gains, 2.4 from her sales. 2.4 is exactly 30% of what she spent, 8.

</p>

[upenn987]

<p>ohh ok…
thanks General…</p>

[Bog]

<p>did you consider reading the summary of answers on the top of page 27?</p>

[oasis]

<p>DmctNY8, regarding the |f(x)| graph question, I’m almost certain it was E. Anyways, it was the graph with no part being negative, so that was an easy question.</p>

[aab123]

<p>I’m looking at 7 wrong, 4 skipped here. We talkin’ 740-750 depending on the curve?</p>

[tcuhna]

<p>what score would you expect with 4 wrong and 1 blank?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[iostream]

<p>I think I have 3 wrong, 0 blank. What would that translate to?</p>

[aab123]

<p>That ^ is an 800</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>7 wrong, 4 omit: Raw score of 37, scaled score of about 730-750.</p>

<p>4 wrong, 1 omit: Raw score of 44, scaled score of 800.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>3 wrong, 0 omit: Raw score of 46, scaled score of 800.</p>

[aab123]

<p>Rak- Why the range? I know the Collegeboard book says 37 raw = 740, but isn’t it more likely for this particular test for there to be an upward curve rather than a downward one?</p>

[Bog]

<p>Why, was this test harder than normal?</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>I wrote this in a previous post to the thread:</p>

<p>

The College Board often changes the scaling table slightly to better fit the results to the modified version of the bell curve they use.</p>

<p>However, if you don’t know the precise curves, data, and baseline sets they’re using, it’s very hard to guess the grading scale to the exact digit.</p>

<p>That said, it typically only deviates about ±1, and maybe ±2 very rarely.</p>

<p>This is for two reasons. First, the test questions and difficulty level are substantially similar year to year. CB estimates that, across the history of the test, one scaled score is bounded by a range of about ±30 (that is, a one-time score of 740 is definitely equivalent to a score within the range of 710-770, no matter what year or specific form you’re talking about). That means that adjustments are relatively minor in magnitude when made. The second reason is due to the fact that many students take the test. In a large sample like this, individual fluctuations get smoothed out naturally and the results tend to fit themselves well to a bell-curve. It only takes minor tweaking every year to get the raw results to precisely equal what the College Board wants.</p>

<p>So yes, I think it would be a safe assumption that things on that chart will only change by ±1 (since it doesn’t seem that this test was exceptionally hard or easy).

</p>

<p>I don’t think we can necessarily make the determination that this test is easier or harder than any other, because we’d be drawing from a highly skewed and rather small sample group. Paired with the statistical ambiguity of the exact scaling system, this factor urges us to lean on the side of caution. Caution suggests that a balanced range is most appropriate here.</p>

<p>My personal opinion is that the curve will stay pretty much the same; however, that’s in no way scientifically derived.</p>

[aab123]

<p>Thanks for the detailed response…I guess it would make sense that the scale would stay the same as the Real SAT II book…meaning 37 raw = 740.</p>

[Agrophobic]

<p>I just noticed something–</p>

<p>I’m a junior so I’ve taken quite a few SATs and SAT IIs and have visited this board quite often after a test to view the discussions. The funny thing that I noticed is that people always ask “Why is this test harder than normal? There should be a big curve, right… right???”</p>

<p>Sadly the curve stays about the same year after year, and the test you took probably isn’t any harder than the tests people took in the year before. It just seems that way. Also, you can never compare the real thing to the “real” tests in the 22 Real SAT IIs because I’ve noticed that many of the tests in that book are quite old and are easier for some reason. You’ll also notice that sample questions on the CB site are a lot easier than the real thing. Just any marketing scam by collegeboard–let’s see collegeboard talk itself out of this one</p>

[Gkilla2005]

<p>Would a 790 Math IIC look bad to MIT??</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>Absolutely not. The difference between a 790 and 800 on the IIC, in the eyes of admissions officers, is very slight. So, if you’re exactly on the borderline between admission and rejection, perhaps it might help tip the balance; however, in virtually every other circumstance, it makes no difference.</p>