coolvenk

Got my AWA scores yesterday. Made 4.5 Thoroughly disappointed. Had expected 5.5-6.0 since i did really well. I guess, like all other things, this involves some luck too... Nevertheless, I'm greatly indebted to TestMagic, for all the wonderful tips, and the great time I had here. Thanks Erin and your team for creating such an amazing forum, and to the wonderful community at TestMagic. You did pull me out of the blues, during my prep...I only wish i had found TM earlier. I guess it is payback time now...I'll try to contribute as much as possible... Thanks again, Venk

Hi salaisan, Congrats on the wonderful score! IMO though, you have been either very modest or very lucky... the GRE scene has been bad esp. in places like Chennai and B'lore. People who havent yet taken it, be warned...it may not be so easy for you...there's absolutely no reason to be overconfident if u've done Barrons... Again, fortune favours the brave, so there's no reason to lose confidence as well... All the best salaisan!!! Venk

Hi Ruby, GR8 score! CONGRATS!!!! Venk

Hi, Well it's something like this....you are born, not where you choose to, but by a quirk of fate. So suppose you are unable to afford a decent education and hence unable to land up in a decent job...it's not totally ur fault...So it is unrealistic to expect you to take responsibility for ur predicament.... Hope that clears it Venk

Hi Sri, Thanks for your encouraging words. I am planning to pursue a Ph.D. in Computer science specialising in Theoretical Computer Science. I'm concerned esp. about my Quants score which is 770. Is it sufficient to get into a good school, with funding? Thanks again! Venk

Hi Andrea, As I said, I didnt really prepare much for TOEFL, just a couple of days. If u have a lot of time and aren't comfortable with American English, I suggest u watch some American movies on TV probably and also CNN, esp. shows like Larry King Live, for listening. For structure, if are not good at Eng. grammar, I suggest you look at either Cliffs TOEFL or Barron's TOEFL. I have not used both, for structure, so u might be better served by getting somebody else's opinion. RCs, if u've prepared for GRE, that shud suffice...there are a few different question types, which u might want to get familiar with....but generally TOEFL RC is a cakewalk when compared to GRE Rc. Again, sam'e true for essays... My GRE score isn't really good...u could find beter suggestions at the Just fin. my GRE test section, the link is: http://www.TestMagic.com/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=54 All the best! Venk

I took my TOEFL today... NO, you are given scratch paper before the Reading section, but are NOT SUPPOSED TO USE IT DURING THE READING SECTION. This is what the TOEFL Orientation sheet that is given before the exam states. Of course, you could use it, and then erase stuff, but remember that you are being videotaped, so though unlikely there is potential for trouble...Be warned! Hope this helps! Venkat

Hi, Just got my final score report by (snail) mail (after many a lost report and enquiries). Got a score of 6.0 on the essay and an overall score of 300. Needless to say, I am satisfied with my performance :-D Will this, in any way offset my pedestrian performance on the GRE (Q770 V630 Essay 4.5) ????? TestMagic has been a big help, for both the GRE and TOEFL....I went through the TOEFL posts only on the night before the exam (I especially remember Madhura's post)...it really helped... Thanks a lot to all of you, especially Erin Billy who has made it all possible...It's a pleasure to be associated with such a wonderful community !!! Venk Hi, My scores are L : 30 S/W: 13-30 R : 30 Score range : 243-300 Happy about my score :cool:. I don't know if it is a case of too little, too late, though ?. Got 1400/1600 (q770 v630) in GRE. Can somebody tell me if this can offset poor GRE score to some extent? Sections were generally easy. In Listening, make sure you put it to max volume. You can probably adjust, the audio later with some external volume control (if u have it on ur headphone). I read Madhura's post the night before. It was very useful. Here it is : http://www.TestMagic.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4122 In listening, lot of American slang is used. Watching American movies would help a lot. Structure was ok...again, I am almost a native speaker of English, have been speaking English, for a long long time. Reading was also ok. Make sure you take your time, and double check your ans. Some questions are comparatively a little tricky. I went slow from the beginning and finished 10 min before time (In Powerprep, I finished like 40 min b4 time). I felt this is a better approach than finishing the whole thing with half an hour to spare, and revising it. Anyway, follow what works best for u. Writing was ok...did reasonably fine. I didn't prepare much. Read the intro parts of Cliff and Barrons, and took one Powerprep test. Got 230-287 on Powerprep. Just be cool and you will be fine... Hope this helps! Venk

Hi, Not very happy with scores :-( Took it on Jun 30, same day as Vinay. I didn't fill the initial questionairre about background. Quants was ok, but was atleast as tough, sometimes a little more than PowerPrep...was expecting 790-800...donno what happened. Verbal, some words were not frm Barrons...many were. 2nd verbal which turned out to be exp. was bloddy easy, i wud hav made 750+ had it been th real one. Essays were ok...i did well. It is important that you guys keep your cool. I was a bit flustered after the 1st verbal...that probably affected my Quants performance a bit. However, I feel that this GRE game, involves a lot of luck too, so say your prayers. Enjoy! Venk

Hi Cryptic, Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. It would be nice if u cud assign a score, though. Thanks again, Venk

Hi, It would be mightly nice if some of you could comment on this: Thanx a lot, Venk --------------------------------------------- 184 "It is dangerous to trust only intelligence" --------------------------------------------- Intelligence, though a very desirable and useful trait, cannot be trusted all the time and can never replace experience, mature judgement and in certain cases instinct, though it can serve to complement them. Intelligence may be defined as the ability to face new situations with a certain degree of success. Intelligence, though useful with lack of experience can never replace the need for experience. It can, at best, very succesfully complement experience. This is the reason why candidates with work experience are often preferred over ones with no work experience, inspite of their having better academic credentials, in top business schools. Also, fresh graduates from business schools are not immediately employed as CEOs for the same reason. Trusting intelligence may lead you to success, but if not harnessed properly, intelligence may dictate violation of ethics and moral principles, to achieve the goals. After all, ethics and morality do place restrictions on what is acceptable. An intelligent but unprincipled person might view such restrictions with contempt. For example, an athlete winning a race by killing his competitors is ethically and morally unacceptable, but intelligence alone might not rule out such a solution. Notions of ethics and morality are essential, and intelligence without such qualities, could well be dangerous. In certain cases, it is better to trust human instinct, rather than intelligence. I read about a real life incident, involving a farmer, sometime ago. A pickup truck acciedntally got stuck in a shallow ditch, in which the farmer's son was working. The farmer who was working nearby, rushed to the spot, only to find his son being crushed under the weight of the truck. Instinctively, he went ahead and lifted the truck just enough to let his son wiggle out. Only later did he think about his action. The truck weighed over a ton and it is not common for humans to lift such enormous weights. Had the farmer applied his intelligence and thought about this, he would have ruled out the option of lifting the truck himself, and his son would probably have lost his life, or at best been severely crippled. It is his paternal instinct to save his son that made him lift the truck without giving it another thought, and in the end, made the difference between life and death for his son. In short, intelligence is a handy trait, but it can only complement other qualities like experience, ethics and instinct. Trusting intelligence alone can be dangerous.

Hi, Please give ur comments. Thanx, Venk ------------------------------ The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce. "Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city." ------------------------------ The author's conclusion that installing high intensity lighting, will indirectly revitalise the declining neighbourhoods is flawed. The author has provided no statistics about the incidence of vandalism in Belleville, before and after installation of high intensity lighting. It is quite possible that even before the installation of high intensity lighting, the number of vandalism incidents in Belleville were quite low. For example, if the number of vandalism incidents were 3 per month before installation of high intensity lighting, and 1 per month after, then though this is signinficant in percentage terms, it probably does not justify the cost of installing high intensity lighting. Also whether the reduction in incidences of vandalism has remained steady is also not clear. The author erroneously assumes that reduction in vandalism in Bellevelle was due to the high intensity lighting. This could be attributed to other causes. For example, it is possible that the employment generated for the installation of high intensity lighting, would have to some extent mitigated the discontent of youth, which might have reduced incidences of Vandalism. The continuing vandalism incidences in Arburg, could be attributed to the inefficacy of patrolling on bicycles, rather than due to unavailability of high intensity lighting. It is possible that vandals find it easy to escape because teh police is unable to pursue them successfully on bicycles. More attention should probablty be paid to improving this aspect of policing rather than on the installation of high intensity lighting. It is also conceivable that most of these vandalism incidences occur during the day. In this case, installing high intensity lighting will have no direct bearing on reduction in vandalism incidences. The author provides no reasons for installing the high intensity lighting throughout Amburg, when it has only been installed in the business district of Bellevelle. The author claims that high intensity lighting appears to be the most eefiecient way to combat crime. The Belleville example only highlights the ostensible efficacy of high intensity lighting in combating vandalism, not other types of crime. The author wrongly assumes that reducing crime will revitalise the declining neighbourhoods of Arburg. The decline in the neighbourhoods could be attributed to other factors such as high unemployment rates and unavailability of good schools. In sum, the author's argument is severely flawed. Additional information such as vandalism statistics before and after installation of high intensity lighting in Belleville, statistics about vandalism instances in Arburg, studies of efficacy of bicycle patrolling, and studies on reasons for decline in Arburg neighbourhoods, would go a long way in furthering the author's argument.

Hi, It wud be mighty nice if some1 scored this for me and gave comments. Many thanks in advance, Venk ------------------------------ 198 "Instead of encouraging conformity, society should show greater appreciation of individual differences." ------------------------------ Society should indeed strive to show greater appreciation of individual differences, as long as these differences do not affect the freedom of people. Confirmity is necessary, in certain cases, to preserve freedom. A modern free society like ours, is made up of people from diverse backgrounds. This invariably leads to differences in the individuals. These differences may arise broadly due to two different reasons. First, the differences may arise by birth. Religious, cultural , social differences and physiological differences like gender and being left or right handed, come under this classification. Second, are the differences arising due to diverse viewpoints. These individual differences if respected and nurtured enable us to have a diverse and vibrant society. After all, if everybody was alike and had the same viewpoints, life would not be so exciting, and it would make for an insipid society. It is only radical new views and ideas that have transformed our society time and again, and these can be brought out only by showing greater appreciation of individual differences. It is important that these differences are respected, and that people have the same rights, irrespective of their individual differences. People should not be discriminated because they are different. For example, many countries have granted equal rights for same sex marriages, as heterosexual marriages. Till recently, such people were not recognised by law, and this was considered a taboo. So, they had to live a secret life, always with the fear of retribution. But, now they can live without fear and with freedom to pursue their destiny. The point is that, irrespective of the opinion other individuals, an individual must be free to pursue his way of living, as long as others' freedom is not affected. Only this will encourage creativity, foster innovation and in general lead to a more vibrant society. However, when an individual trait, infringes with the freedom of others, laws must be enacted to curtail this, and confirmity to the law must be made mandatory. This is necessary to preserve others' freedom. For instance, just because and individual has a propensity to kill others, he must not be free to do so, in the name of showing greater appreciation of individual differences. His act of killing takes away another individual's right to live, which must not happen. Laws are therefore needed to ban individual actions that violate others' rights. In sum, a greater appreciation of individual differences is necessary, while ensuring that this does not affect the individual freedom of other individuals. Only this will lead to a vibrant and healthy society.

When Jan starts, Tom has alredy read: 5:20-4:30= 50m = 30 pages*5/6=25 pages Jan can read 40 pages-30 pages=10 pages faster per hr than tom To catch up with tom Jan will need 25/10=2h 30m Add that to her starting time 5:20+ 2h30m= 7:50 Voila! For 2nd problem use relative velocity! They r traveling toward each other at 120 floors a min. Since they r 40 flrs apart, they'll meet in 40/120 = 1/3 min. in this time steve'll go 57/3=19 floors up. Since he starts off in Floor 11, they meet at 11+19=30th flr Hope this helps! Venk

I agree!!!

Hi, Thanks Moizza, for your incisive assessment. I guess, I confused myself way too much. Nonetheless, we have not at all focussed on the "...whether or not that individual truly represents the views of the entire group."part. I think the issue is: ** Media and society expect any guy to spk 4 a grp, without necessarily being convinced that he represents the views of the grp; they r mistaken when they do this.** The emphasis is on "WHETHER OR NOT", in my humble opinion. For example, you cannot expect any layman Christian's views to reflect that of the Christian community. But a respected figure like the Pope, might be expected to reflect the views of the grp. Ok Here's the revised str of my essay: Para1: Every group must have spokespersons, whether explicitly appointed or tacitly accepted. The media and society are mistaken when they expect any person belonging to the group to reflect the views of the group, without being reasonably satisfied about their credentials. Para2: Spokespersons are necessary for a gp bcos of the impracticability of any other alternative arrangement... Para3: Groups can be broadly classified into two types. First, is a group formally set up with a particular purpose. e.g A political party. Such grps hav appointed leaders and spokespersons. Thiese grps have resonably limited membership. Second, is an informal loosely defined group, whose members are just people who identify with the group's cause and ideals. e.g are religions and the Open Source Movt. Here leaders are not officially elected, but reputation a major role in deciding who is authoritative enuf to be considered a spokesperson. Para4: For the more formal groups, it is easier for the media to expect particular individuals, who r spokespersons to spk 4 the gp. these have spksperons who can b kicked out if they dont do their job well Para5: However, it is more difficult in case of the loosely formed groups, and media needds 2 do their homework . It is unlikely that venerable individuals would make irresponsible statements (that dont reflect views of the gp). Howeveer, if they do, then the other members can rebut it, and the media must impartially cover these, so that eventually the views of the gp are made clear. Often, Certain individuals in groups, who represent the extreme views express these vociferously in the media, in a bid to attract attention and mislead the media, that these are indeed the views of the gp. e.g Osama. Para6: it could b argued that no individual can represent a group, because he cannot b expectd to agree with the views of the gp. But, he doesnt need 2 agree with the group to air the views. Para7: Conclude. Moizza, I am sure that, by now, you are positively vexed with me. I'm sorry if I am bugging you, it's just that everytime I look at this topic, I see a new perspective to it. As always, I truly appreciate your feedback and criticism. Enjoy! Venk P.S.: I tried writing an argument topic that you had posted long ago...it would be nice of u could give your comments. The link is : http://www.TestMagic.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4289

Hi, This was one of my first essays...not ver good....but might give u ideas Enjoy! Venk ------------------------------ "Too much emphasis is placed on role models. Instead of copying others, people should learn to think and act independently and thus make the choices that are best for them." ------------------------------ Our society, particularly the younger generation looks up to selected people who have achieved some parameters of success, as "role models", to emulate. The whole concept, in my opinion, is flawed simply because by visualising someone as your role model you set limits to what you can achieve. Every individual born on this earth (with the possible exception of identical twins, triplets and so on) is unique, in his own respect. Thus there is no reason why he should strive to copy someone else, whom the society recognises as being "successful". Also by copying the role model the individual can only achieve as much as the role model and no more, because to him the role model represents the ultimate symbol of success. The story of the eagle and the prairie chickens comes to mind. An eagle while flying accidentally dropped one of its eggs in the nest of a prairie chicken. The prairie chicken raised the eagle thinking it as one of its own kind. The eagle also thought it was a prairie chicken, and would walk, peck at grains and occasionally fly for a few feet. One day it saw an eagle in the sky and asked another praie chicken about it. The prairie chicken told him that the bird was an eagle and that we could never be like it. The prairie chicken accepted this. It eventually died, never realising that it was an eagle and capable of many more glorious things. Another problem is the availability of credible upright people who can be looked up to as role models. Every human being, role model or not, has a dark side. For instance, Bill Clinton was considered to be a role model for prospective husbands, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke out. When role models don't live up to the expectations of the people, people looking up to them feel disappointed and frustrated. Instead of looking at the outside world for role models, people should instead look inwards. They should try and identify their talents and strive to develop them. The choices they make should be based on independent thought and not dictated by the actions of some obscure role model.

Hi, The topic by itself is quite ambiguous or I am not as good at English as I would like. :) Does "...mistakenly expect an individual to speak for a particular group..." mean that the viability of a spokesman is being questioned (Moizza's interpretation), or that you should not assume that every statement made by a guy who happens 2 b in a group, is the view of the group(my interpretation) ??? I think it would have been ideal if I had stated how I interpreted the topic b4 starting with my points. What do u think? I think we must also clearly define what constitutes a group. While writing this essay, I somehow thought only in terms of a political party and not in terms of say a group of ppl belonging to a particualr faith (Moizza's example). Also now that I see it, I hav implicitly assumed that if the guy says he is speaking for the group, he is right. This may not be the case as Moizza pointed out with his Osama example. My essay is quite flawed. First, is the lack of examples. I'm not sure, though, if giving Sept 11 as an example would be sensitive enuf. And yes Ashu, now that I read it, I feel that i have indeed overemphasised the "...individual should state clearly whether his opinions are his own or if they belong to the whole group" thing. This topic does seem to be a minefield...with the intricacies in interpretation and the difficulty in finding concrete examples. Thanx a lot for your comments !!! Enjoy! Venk

Hi, could somebody please comment on my critique Thanx alot, Venk -------------------- 059.....The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper "According to the available medical reports, the six worst world wide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1930, 1918, 1955, 1968 and 1977. These were all years with heavy sunspot activity, i.e., years when the earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. People at particular risk for flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the sun" -------------------- The author's argument which concludes that exposure to the sun is correlated with higher risk of contracting flu though seemingly correct has many serious flaws. First, the mere fact that the years in which the worst flu epidemics occured were those with heavy sunspot activity, does not imply that high sunspot activity is correlated with flu epidemics. If such heavy sunspot activity were fairly common, then this coincidence would not necessarily be indicative of the real trend. It is also possible that the most of the flu epidemics were similar in their intensity and the top twenty flu epidemics were really quite close, in terms of their spread and intensity. Secondly, the author's contention that prolonged exposure to sun significantly increases chances of contracting flu are premature. Even, if we assume that years with heavy sunpot activity are more prone to flu epidemics, this conclusion is dubious. The flu epidemic could be a result of other conditions. For instance, it is possible that in such years, due to increased heat, people tend to stay at home or together in sheltered locations. This increased contact among people could help the easy spread of the flu virus. It is also possible that people travelled to cooler places, and carried the infection with them leading to a worldwide epidemic. The argument would have been more convincing, had the author provided details of frequency of increased sunspot activity and details of all the major worldwide flu epidemics in the last 300 years. Also a study relating exposure to the sun and incidence of flu in people at particular risk to it would go a long way in establishing the author's argument. In short, the author's conclusion that prolonged exposure to sun is directly correlated with incidence of flu, in individuals at particular risk to it, is flawed and requires further evidence to justify.

Hi, Here's an essay I wrote...It would be great if u could give ur comments! Thanks in advance, Venk ------------------------------ 060 The media and society in general mistakenly expect an individual to speak for a particular group, whether or not that individual truly represents the views of the entire group. ------------------------------ The media and society do often mistake the personal views of an individual who happens to belong to a group, to reflect the views of the group. However, individuals, in capacities as spokespersons of the group can be expected to articulate the views of the group as a whole. The term "views of the entire group" is a misnomer. Most often, the views of the members of a group are not convergent. However, since a group is by definition formed beacuse of the common interests and aspirations of a set of people, there is always common ground. Usually, the lowest common denominator of these views, evolved by consensus, is formulated as the view of the group as a whole. An individual, who is given the responsibility of being the spokesperson closely tracks these views and conveys them in a form that can be communicated to the public. This individual need not necessarily personally agree with these views. Many individuals belonging to a group who speak to the media, state clearly whether the views expressed are only their own or whether they reflect those of the group. This makes no room for ambiguity and does not mislead the public. However, with the current trend of sensationalisation of news with a view to increase readership/viewership of the media, statements (especially controversial ones) by individuals belong to a group are often portrayed to reflect those of the group. This is usually followed by denials by other members of the group, and a clarification by the individual in question, that the views expressed were in fact his own, and did not reflect those of the group. Sometimes, groups also use the above ploy to test whether a particular view is acceptable to the public, and retract them if the public find it unacceptable or if the popularity of the group seems to be going down. It could be argued that, an individual who does not agree with the views of the group cannot be expected to convey them to the public. This is not true because an individual's conviction does not interfere with his ability to communicate the views of the entire group. He is not expected to defend these views but to merely convey them. Also it is impracticable to expect all the members of a group to be present while articulating the views of the group to the general public. To summarise, individuals belonging to groups must be careful in stating whether the views they express in the statements they make, reflect those of the group, or whether they are in fact personal views. Further, the media must resist the temptation of sensationalising statements and must strive to obtain clarifications before publishing such statements. This would go a long way in avoiding ambiguities and misinformation.

Hi Moizza, I am new around here and taking my GRE on Jun 30th. It would be gr8 if u could send me a copy of your points ASAP. My email ID is coolvenk@vsnl.com Thanks in advance! Venk

Hi, 1/0 is infinity. You only say undefined, when, for example you define a function and say that it's value is less than infinity say in [c,infinity). When such a function yields infinity u say that the function is undefined at that point since ur initial definition does not define the value of the function at infinity! Hope this helps. Venk

Hi, Here's an essay I wrote...It would be great if u could give ur comments!:) Thanks in advance, Venk[dance] ------------------------------ "The media and society in general mistakenly expect an individual to speak for a particular group, whether or not that individual truly represents the views of the entire group." ------------------------------ The media and society do often mistake the personal views of an individual who happens to belong to a group, to reflect the views of the group. However, individuals, in capacities as spokespersons of the group can be expected to articulate the views of the group as a whole. The term "views of the entire group" is a misnomer. Most often, the views of the members of a group are not convergent. However, since a group is by definition formed beacuse of the common interests and aspirations of a set of people, there is always common ground. Usually, the lowest common denominator of these views, evolved by consensus, is formulated as the view of the group as a whole. An individual, who is given the responsibility of being the spokesperson closely tracks these views and conveys them in a form that can be communicated to the public. This individual need not necessarily personally agree with these views. Many individuals belonging to a group who speak to the media, state clearly whether the views expressed are only their own or whether they reflect those of the group. This makes no room for ambiguity and does not mislead the public. However, with the current trend of sensationalisation of news with a view to increase readership/viewership of the media, statements (especially controversial ones) by individuals belong to a group are often portrayed to reflect those of the group. This is usually followed by denials by other members of the group, and a clarification by the individual in question, that the views expressed were in fact his own, and did not reflect those of the group. Sometimes, groups also use the above ploy to test whether a particular view is acceptable to the public, and retract them if the public find it unacceptable or if the popularity of the group seems to be going down. It could be argued that, an individual who does not agree with the views of the group cannot be expected to convey them to the public. This is not true because an individual's conviction does not interfere with his ability to communicate the views of the entire group. He is not expected to defend these views but to merely convey them. Also it is impracticable to expect all the members of a group to be present while articulating the views of the group to the general public. To summarise, individuals belonging to groups must be careful in stating whether the views they express in the statements they make, reflect those of the group, or whether they are in fact personal views. Further, the media must resist the temptation of sensationalising statements and must strive to obtain clarifications before publishing such statements. This would go a long way in avoiding ambiguities and misinformation.