kiwiz

I believe there is some confusion regarding the issue of profit and percent. Percent Profit is calculated from the Retail Price of a good or service. The correct answer to the question concerning obstetrics would be that the hospital receives a profit of 20% (700/3500). The Percent Markup is the value added to the service in excess of costs. Therefore, there is a 25% markup on $2800. Considering the wording, I believe the correct answer is that the hospital receives a 20% profit on each birth. Admittedly, it is somewhat confusing and I am surprised at the question... it it very misleading. I checked a number of websites before posting this though and they support this conclusion. Sorry... I know this is from a while ago but it threw me for a loop so I had to double check!! I hope this is helpful rather than adding to confusion!!

I actually get a different answer... though there is still no correct answer in the questions listed. I found the percent increase from 0.6y^2 to 2y^2 was actually 230% Any advice people?

Nice work! If I were going to be really picky.... You may have articulated a definition of "effective political leaders" ... for all intensive purposes Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein orchestrated extremely effective control over their populaces with very little compromise which undermines your argument. This could be avoided simply by outlining that you are discussing the role of politicians in a democratic/North American context. But really, it's great!

Personally, I would state my position on this argument in the introduction as opposed to the conclusion. You have several grammatical errors so keep an eye for that. I would also avoid the use of colloquial terms like "whooping" and "punk" though I can't say for certain whether it matters, there are definitely more professional ways to phrase them. You touch on the fact that technology is subject to the will of whomsoever uses it and I think this is an important point that you could have elaborated on. It's not the technology that is inherently bad, rather it is our abuses of it. Hope that helps! Good luck :)

I found the second paragraph actually led away from the crux of your discussion. I would have switched P3 and P2 so that your post-introductory paragraph more clearly addresses the actual characteristics needed for success. All in all, if you had any time left at the end you would benefit from adding a couple sentences to your introduction that organize your discussion by framing the context for the reader. I.e. "The following paragraphs illustrate the nefarious nature of the human environment and the key characteristics necessary to overcome and succeed in it." Hope that helps :)

Cool, thanks for the feedback! I figured it was a little weak at the end there but I blanked in my last 15 min.

“What most human beings really want to attain is not knowledge, but certainty. Gaining real knowledge requires taking risks and keeping the mind open—but most people prefer to be reassured rather than to learn the complex and often unsettling truth about anything.” This is a difficult statement to discuss not only because how we define knowledge and certainty is questionable but also because it makes assumptions about the value people place in knowledge, certainty and truth. It is clear that the author of this statement does not see knowledge and certainty as being the same. However, if this is the case, then what is knowledge? A basic deconstruction of the word tells us that knowledge is information that we know. Does it not follow that if we know something to be true we are certain of it? And if we are not certain of it, then can we consider it knowledge at all? I do not see a way to reconcile a difference between these terms. If one is not certain of the knowledge they possess then it follows that what they know may be false and the quest for further knowledge must continue. To know a thing is to be certain of it. It is possible to consider that knowledge is really just accumulated information amounting to substantial proof of a thing in which case knowledge is simply the precursor to certainty. If this is so, it cannot be said that human beings want certainty without knowledge unless they are simply willing to accept the conclusions of others with certainty. Thus, the statement appears to assume that the majority of people are willing to accept what they are told without knowledge of the truth behind that information. This is a poor form of certainty, a sad view of humanity, and a situation that I believe to be incorrect. It is undeniable that for centuries, individuals in positions of higher education, power and influence have had the ability to lead people through the provision of carefully selected truths and revealed knowledge. For example, the Catholic church successfully held sway over Europe for years, indoctrinating an entire society with a host of lucrative and politically beneficial ideals. However, it can be argued that the success of the church is related to the degree to which the lower echelons constituting the majority were kept uneducated and poor. Today, technology has made communication, education and the rapid exchange of information virtually impossible to control. People are more aware than ever of the political and social environment in which they live. The recent American election is a dramatic example of the fact that people are not willing to accept what they are told and more than that, certainty is apparently not the priority. By electing for Obama as President, the American people have demonstrated that taking risks and keeping an open mind are actually more important than the so called reassuring certainty that a McCain legislation might provide. Ultimately, the statement is convoluted and untrue. If we can differentiate between knowledge and certainty at all, we can be sure that modern education and communication has given humanity a new wave of independent perspective that can longer be satisfied by so-called simple certainty.