rakovsky

1. Joe makes 5 widgets in an hour and Pete makes 4 widgets in an hour. So how many do they make together? Question- explain why you can't say: Joe= 5widgets/hr Pete = 4 widgets/hr 5w/1h + 4w/1h = 9w/1h 2. Daryl makes 250 screws/4hour and Jane makes 200 screws/5hour, so how long will it take to make 1000 screws? A. 8 hours 25 minutes B. 9 hours 45 minutes C. 10 hours 30 minutes D. 12 hours 45 minutes How did you do it? :hmm:

If a hypnotized person is told they are deaf and then asked if they can hear the person who is hypnotizing them, the hypnotized person says no. Some scholars claim that the hypnotized person's character is dissociated into 2 separate halves, and the half that is "deaf" is separate from the half that answered the question. Which of these probing questions shows the biggest flaws in the scholars' claim? A. Why do hypnotized people all answer the same way? B. Why doesn't the half that answers the question say yes? C. Why are the separate halves the same for all hypnotized people? Do you agree with the Answer? If the scholars' claim was right, then wouldn't some people be using their "deaf" half when the hypnotizer asked the question, and therefore not answer anything? And if that is true, raising Choice A is a legitimate concern: "If your claim is true, then why doesn't it ever happen that the deaf half makes the person not hear the question and therefore not give an answer?"

The author says that Branch is not familiar with recent physics reports and therefore cannot make a reliable sighting. This implies that only a person acquainted with the newest science reports discounting UFO sightings can make a reliable UFO report. 1. A person's credentials are relevant to some extent as to whether they can reliably make a UFO sighting report. Certainly a toddler would not have good credentials for a UFO report. A fish specialist is necessary to definitively say if an ancient type of fish has been discovered alive. On the other hand, you don't have to be familiar with reports saying that UFOs don't exist to make a UFO report that would have at least some merit. Especially if you gave lots of details and gave good reason. So a person's credentials do matter to some degree in making a report, but it is not the only thing to provide relability either. 2. Doesnt sound right. 3. Doesn't counteract the argument that she is not qualified- US airforce might be qualified, but it is not the one making the reports- it is getting reports made to it. 4. Just because she is sociologist doesnt mean she can't know the latest physics reports. This is a good criticism. On the other hand, this choice does not address that fact that maybe someone who hasn't read the latest reports can still make a reliable sighting. 5. This does not refute the author's analysis. So choices 1 and 4 look like good answers. For choice 1: You don't have to have the credentials of reading the latest technical science reports to make an accurate report, but it helps. And what exactly is irrelevant about the "attack?" But choice 4 makes its idea clearer, so it looks better.

One practice question goes similar to this: One effective publicity tactic for a book is to publish small selections from it in a large-scale newspaper right before it is printed. The benefits of this tactic are a sure increase in sales and a fee paid by the newspaper to the printer. Which conclusion is best supported by the previous statements? A) The efficiency of publishing selections in a newspaper, measured in terms of increased book sales, is proportional to that newspaper's circulation. B) The amount of people for whom reading selections from a book in a newspaper provides a good enough substitute for reading the entire book is less than the amount of people for whom those selections motivate them to read the book. C) Books that are appropriate for printing in big newspapers sell better than books that are not appropriate for those newspapers. Okay, my opinion is that none of these 3 choices is good. Regarding Choice B: Even if there are more people who are satisfied from reading the selections in the newspapers than people who read the selections and decide to buy the book, this can be an efficient way for a book to get alot of readers. Imagine if the book was not published in the newspaper and got only 100 readers. What if the book was then published in a big newspaper and 600 newspaper readers said, "hmmm... that looks like an interesting book, but now that I read these selections I have read enough and I don't need to buy it," and then 400 readers said "Hey, these selections are interesting, and I will buy the book." In this case, printing the selections in the newspaper was an efficient way to get alot of sales, which is what the statements say. This tactic reached alot of people who would never have heard of the book before. It got alot of people to buy the book, even though in this case more people decided that just reading the selections was enough, than those who decided to buy the book. What do you think? Is B the answer?

According to the DATA SUFFICIENCY section of the official GMAT practice review software: Does this make sense? You can get the software free in the mail when you register for the GMAT.

PD, Thanks for the input. Do you know how to find out what schools have "critical legal studies?"

A career in civil rights might scare a man in a white sheet, but a green skeleton?

Hello, I am searching for Law Schools with heterodox law programs. For example, most economic grad programs today run the students through a conventional track teaching Neoclassical (or "Neoliberal") economics. But a number of schools have heterodox programs (meaning radical, non-mainstream) that study economics from a whole range of viewpoints, like Keynesianism (President Franklin Roosevelt's policies), Marxism, and others! American University Notre Dame University of Massachusetts University of Vermont The full list is at: http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/hetecon/schools.htm http://www.csbsju.edu/economics/Careers/Heterodox%20Graduate%20Programs/Heterodox%20Graduate%20Programs.htm It would be exciting to study Law from a radical perspective too! A radical law program might talk about how corporate lobbying groups almost make our laws, or the contradiction between real democracy and democracy "as it is," where people might want things one way, but the government will still decide against their interests. Or how should a lawyer who believes in the public interest act differently than lawyers for corporate interests? Is it more important to choose a winnable case, or to take a stand on a losing, but vital issue? There is a list of heterodox economic schools, but how about heterodox law schools?

Setup Press= Profit making ( outside control = propaganda ) -- > easily subsidized no honest journalism = subsidized But: If (Press = no profit) & (press = no subsidized) --> no survivial If (press= no profit) & (press = subsidized) --> survival A) wrong. it doesn't mention that profit making companies are free from control. B) no , it just won't have to resort to subsidies. C) no, it only says that not profit making companies must be subsized

SETUP: 6 days, 1 factory per day, F, G, H, J, Q, R F= 1 or 6 J...Q QRF G=3 --> Q=5 therefore Q=/=5 --> G=/=3 Choice A. J G H Q R F works so A might not be true. Choice B. H G J Q R F works so B might not be true. Choice C. G H J Q R F works so C might not be true. Choice D. QRF must be last, and G can't be third. So either H or J must be scheduled for day 3. Answer= Choice D I find that I spend significant amounts of time on the choices leading up to the right answer. In the case above, the right answer was easy for me to see. Is there a way that I can usually look ahead and spot the right answer quickly, or is it a waste of time because it is not so easy?

I think you have to email him.

I think you have to email him.

TSDVJ's 8 consumer problem. Setup: F...J K...N ~G...M H=1 --> L=1 therefore L=2 --> H=2 N=2 --> G=1 therefore G=2 --> N=1 To test answer 1 put G in group 2. MNKL GFJH works So answer 1 doesn't have to be true. For answer 2 put H in group 1. HLKN FJGM doesn't work. HLGJ KNMF doesn't work. HLMJ KNGF doesn't work. HL _ _ KN _ _ doesn't work. Answer 2 is correct- H must be in group 2. For answer 3 put J in group 2. KNML JFGH works. For answer 4 put K in group 1. KNML JFGH works. For Answer 5 put M in group 2. GKNL MFJH works. Answer 2 is correct. TSDVJ, your example "group1 - KNGL group2 - HFJM" works too and disproves Choice 3. It is ok that you posted it, the practice is good.

How long did you prepare for the LSAT? I heard some people take ETS tests without any study and do well.

The NOVA study guide appears to be one of the best preparation materials available, but some of its advice is confusing. Can you explain it? On page 24, the book says that the test takes the word "or" to be inclusive. For example, "Bob or Josh could be at the bar tonight." But I thought that the more literal meaning of "or" was exclusive. Otherwise, what is the point of the term "and/or" if the literal meaning of "or" is not exclusive? Page 37 shows you how to set up symbols to understand the logic games. To symbolize Y is to the immediate right of X write: XY To show Y is somewhere between X and Z write: X...Y...Z and put a line under it to show the X and Z could be flipped, and Z could come first and X last. To symbolize that X is not next to Y write: ~(XY) But it has no line under the X and Y, but instead says that once I'm used to that the order can be reversed, I don't need to use the flip flop symbol. This does not make sense, since how do I distinguish "not next to eachother" from "Y is to the right of X?" In other parts of the book, does it use the XY symbol to mean both? What should I use? Page 239 says to put a sentence like this in If-then form: "Only if James is allowed to go will Kenneth go." We can say "If James doesn't go, then Kenneth won't" and "If Kenneth goes, then James does too" The statement can also be rewritten as: "Ken will go in the case that James goes, but not in any others." Now, doesn't that mean "If James goes, then Kenneth will too?" In a similar example, "Danielle will go to Trident College only if she gets A's on her final exams." In other words, Danielle will go to Trident College in the case that her grades are A's, but not with any other grades. Yet the book says, "There is no such guarantee. The only guarantee is that if she does not get an A, then she will not go to Trident College." Do you know what the symbols I and BV stand for on page 256? Can you combine the statements ~H -> B H _> ~B into one line?