<p>Right. I am thinking I’m Wrong. As long as I get 2130 or higher that’s a good fall back as a junior!</p>
<p>Ah… I really hope we are right about the traffic analogy… Doubt it though :/</p>
<p>I still stand by rational, and the recycling guy. I think -0 on M, -0 on W given pretty good essay, and -4 (answered 3 wrong) on CR.</p>
<p>Ahh I’m so scared about CR! And -2 M (ughhh I made the most stupid mistakes), -0 W, and -4 CR. So like a 2250-ish?</p>
<p>@lilyy96 no probably better :).</p>
<p>I think around 2320-2340, but who knows!</p>
<p>And I’m pretty sure it’s the recycling answer! And for cold-blooded, I think it’s rational. Heartless detachment does not work…AND my sat teacher was saying, a previous week, never to pick an extreme answer for reading, unless the passage has very strong feelings/w/e in it. So heartless detachment seems a bit much for this passage…rational works better.</p>
<p>what were the “traffic analogy” and “possibility” questions? ty in advance.</p>
<p>The traffic analogy question was about what that traffic engineer guy was most like…some choices were becoming a science teacher (something like that) and a person giving recycling demonstrations.</p>
<p>i put a government official becoming a science teacher. i think… all i remember was that i was pretty confident for that one. ouch, not anymore, since it’s become a debate. what’s the reasoning for the other one?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>but if you’re heartlessly detached, then you would have no feelings for it, thus, you wouldn’t become depressed. </p>
<p>i forgot the exact wording of the paragraph, though.</p>
<p>I put the government official becoming a science teacher as well. I too was pretty confident about that answer.</p>
<p>Who knows though? Time will tell.</p>
<p>The traffic problem was probabbly the easiest in that section.</p>
<p>What did that character do? Go around the world to teach traffic regulations(argue if you want whether or not it was social/educational, doesn’t matter). </p>
<p>The only answer that was reasonably correct was the one where the person went to different states(analogous to the “around the world”) to teach something(doesn’t matter what it is, you guys are nit picking at the wrong things.).</p>
<p>And the heartless detachment thing was obviously incorrect. SAT tricked everyone who chose that answer; people just thought that cold-blooded–>blood–>heart–>heartless+detachment(?). If you looked at the situation in a heartlessly detached way, wouldn’t you say you’d be more cynical? You would have no emotions: why should the situation be less gloomy if you have no emotions? If you think about it rationally, whats the conotation of losing a job?(or was it a home? doesnt matter) If I lost a job, I would logically think it was a bad event.</p>
<p>I guess you are right about the heartless detachment, I should have carried over my thought that those questions have all correct definitions of the word, but I didnt. However, the way your putting it, isn’t it similar that the Government Official (National and Professional) went to a High School (Small Scale) to teach about something EDUCATIONAL? It all rides on whether he taught social things in the context of the sentence referenced. Because, then it is analogous to going to a different field on a small scale level to educate. That is the teacher parallel. The recycling one is all the same field, so if he taught socially in the situation then it is the teacher who taught science.</p>
<p>these are the ones that need to be resolved:
- contented vs. ambivalent - i chose ambivalent due to her view of the landlord and I am going to stick to it.
- methodology/philosophy - don’t remember this question and what I put.
- phenomenon/theory - ditto
- quackery/humbuggery - i’m also going to stick to my choice of humbuggery because I feel like both answers could really make sense.</p>
<p>Does anyone know when/how I can debate the collegeboard especially with that quackery question? Will I lose any points if I do so? I just want to know the answer so badly NOW</p>
<p>I also agree with Divy in the point that something else is done besides their standard occupation. The main point of the sentence is that he was also a social engineer, not that travelled to other places to teach his traffic knowledge.</p>
<p>i have to disagree if you looked at the line reference the main point was that he went to Paris and Brazil to spread his knowledge, hence the recycling guy</p>
<p>"But Eno, who became a global celebrity of sorts, boating off to Paris and S</p>
<p>Divy, I dont understand your logic.</p>
<p>The traffic guy went from the local scale into a larger scale.
The Government Official (National and Professional) went to a High School (Small Scale)
Traffic guy went from SMALL to BIG
Governemnt Official went from BIG to SMALL</p>
<p>Automatically nullifies that answer choice.</p>
<p>And jman it was 100% quackery; that is literally the EXACT definition of quackery. It was a hard question hence the erudite vocab.</p>
<p>@ turtle
note the key words “global celebrity” and “teaching VAST numbers of people”.</p>
<p>I do note those words. Yet teaching vast numbers of people refers to social engineering, not his traffic engineering skills. I don’t see how global celebrity fits into anything though.</p>
<ol>
<li>What does the phrase “only keep in the right side was the common rule” indicate? Underscore the need for more laws (rules)</li>
</ol>
<p>For this one, I don’t think that was an answer choice. I am pretty sure it was to underscore tHe lack of laws not the need for more laws…anyone?</p>