This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - wovst
« on: October 05, 2006, 06:40:58 PM »
the negative correlation exists only within the subgroup of people who smoke.
the problem implicitly refers to a correlation with regards to the general population.
people who smoke are more likely to drink caffeine (than the general population) and have an increased risk of heart disease (as compared to the general population). therefore there is a positive correlation between drinking caffeine and increased risk of heart disease.
stimulus with majority answer applied:
people who smoke are more likely to drink caffeine (than the general population). people who smoke have an increased risk of heart disease (as compared to the general population). caffeine decreases the risk of heart disease... BUT smokers already have an increased risk of heart disease (as stated in the stimulus), and there is no evidence in this answer to suggest that caffeine decreases the risk of heart disease more than smoking increases it.
this allows for the possibility that the following groups exist:
general population- normal risk of heart disease
people who smoke and drink caffeine- higher risk of heart disease than GP, less than those who smoke and don't drink caffeine.
people who smoke and don't drink caffeine- higher risk of heart disease than other two groups.
since people who smoke and drink caffeine can still have a higher risk of heart disease than the general population, and they are also more likely to drink caffeine, there still exists a positive correlation between caffeine and heart disease.
also, can someone give me a way in which my logic regarding the answer saying that the people who drink caffeine are not necessarily the same people with an increased risk of heart disease is flawed?
i agreed and also went with the 'not necessarily' answer choice. please let me know if you figure out exactly why this isn't TCR. (if it isn't)
« on: October 05, 2006, 05:52:48 PM »
I emailed them and asked about this. From their answer, I did the following.
If this is the line on the app, I put:
Please see attachment for additional descriptions - Position, Activity 1; Position, Activity 2; Position, Activity 3
Then I put an attachment with bullet points with the position, the amount of time it took out of my week, and a brief description.
Were you also sending a resume? Or was this in lieu of a resume?
yeah, it feels a little redundant. and it's a pain.
« on: October 05, 2006, 05:49:50 PM »
thanks for the info.
« on: October 05, 2006, 12:23:38 AM »
re: columbia's messy app
a) are you guys including years here?
b) with only three lines, are you separating activities w/ a semicolon?
c) are you numbering them?
d) are you actually describing anything? there's not much room.
« on: October 04, 2006, 11:34:26 PM »
was there an answer choice along the lines of, 'smokers who drink caffeine are not necessarily the smokers with heart disease'?
« on: October 04, 2006, 06:06:05 PM »
The main point question concerning outside influences. This was a premise used to justify the conclusion that we should be objective when looking at cultures. In other words, we should be objective when looking at culture because outside influences can effect them.
this is a passage from edward said-- i really think objectivity is out. within the passage, claims to objectivity only serve to support/mask mechanisms of the power structure. regardless of author, 'objectivity' is not a favored concept in a passage discussing historiography/culture.
« on: October 04, 2006, 02:59:31 PM »
me too - PM
« on: October 04, 2006, 02:45:53 PM »
Also, does anyone who picked "can't be replicated" for that hotly debated question remember which letter it was? perhaps B?
yeah, initial conditions can't be replicated was answer B. i picked it and changed it to A at the last minute (the initial conditions can be rep., but unpredictable blah blah). agh.
I chose this as well. I came up to that question with 1 minute left for RC so I had a decent amount of time to look at it; plus I had the entire 15 minute break to think about it. I went into the break thinking B, but changed to A after having plenty of time to think about it.
storm, my greatest concern is about the difference between S&O and the basin analogy. i fear that b/c the basin analogy was so prominent in the passage that when i was reflecting on the passage as a whole, i turned to what made sense with the basin. but from what i recall, S&O's position was slightly different? was it different b/c it concerned itself with starting conditions (i hope not)? in that case, if 28 specifically references S&O and not the passage as a whole, i'm a little worried.
« on: October 04, 2006, 02:42:12 PM »
What did other people pick -- B or D? Is our answer supposed to reflect D or B?
to clarify, i'm not entirely sure it was B, but it was the answer that more clearly matched what someone has labeled as b, and it seems different enough from TCR here. my answer definitely had to do with unpredictable routes.
« on: October 04, 2006, 02:40:12 PM »
For passage 3, 17:
17. What is the author's purpose?
ANSWER: author wanted to stress for objectivity when dealing with the origins of cultural identity
MINORITY: new theories support the idea that cultures are not created indpendent of outside influences
I just don't see how is the minority answer not the correct answer. The passage talked about the idea that no culture is completely monolithic and that outside influences shape all cultures. Plus, i dont remember anything being said about objectivity. thoughts?
agreed. it's implied that the creators of history falsely impose a sense of objectivity.