Re: question about the 86 and the 89

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: question about the 86 and the 89

I'm not the smartest guy when it comes to math, (IMP program!) and when I
got my 86 my first test w/82 was 960 and then I took it a second time with
my 86 and I got 1150. This isn't to say my 86 helped that much, I also took
a class, but with the Equation Solver in there on the 86 the problems that
would have taken actual thinking I could just plug into my calculator and
then save time for the ones that I had to write out and think about.
        Basically, my 86 helps me out with the "solve for x" type of questions
that I do know how to answer but I'm not as quick at it as I can have my 86
do it.
        I know you guys out there with the 1600s can easily say you don't need a
calc., but I'm around average, and it does help me out, also because I know
pretty well how to use my calculator and when it is faster to do it by hand.
        My mentality for math isn't the exact formula that is taught if I can't
remember it, but I often look at it logically and try to figure it out, and
using that equation solver to plug in the multiple choice answers to get
the answer you want is pretty easy to do if you're not sure how to solve
the problem. The calculator isn't the end-all to doing well on the SAT, you
still have to use your brain, but it does help.

Nic Werner.


At 12:52 PM 10/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I believe him.  I personally got perfect scores on the ACT and AP Calculus
>test with a TI-85.  The calculator has nothing to do with it, really, it's
>whether you know the material.  If your GPA is 2, no TI-89 will help you
>score well.
>
>>you know what BULL SHIT 1600 yea right so far from what i have seen of
>>you you are nothing but a bully picking on the newbies so shut the fuck
>>up or i will shut you up for everybody else
>>
>>>I can testify from personal experience that a TI-89 is not needed on
>>the SAT. I
>>>got a perfect 1600 on the SAT with a TI-85 that had 1K of free memory.
>>(I was
>>>working on several prime number projects at the time and was too lazy
>>to wipe
>>>my memory.)
>
>
Follow-Ups: