Oatmeal Prince

I know this topic is about research jobs, but this seems as good a place as any to ask. I'm looking to apply to a different position at J-LAB,* but the job posting in question has a late February application due date. Of course, the main job page (Jobs | The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab) reads, "Complete the J-PAL common application, including submission of transcripts and letters of recommendation, by January 31, 2011." Can anyone at J-LAB or (or someone familiar with J-LAB's application process) please clear up this conflict of information for me? I'm afraid to even ask J-LAB directly as the FAQ states, "phone calls and email inquires cannot be accepted." Thank you! *I'm looking at a Type IV position; HOWEVER, the job posting specifically requests that applicants select Type III on the common application.

It is good that you took issue with the second part of the prompt, but I would also take issue with the first part ("The function of science is to reassure"). The function of science is not necessarily to reassure. Science is not concerned with reassurance; it is simply concerned with arriving at empirical truths through the scientific method. These truths may sometimes be reassuring, but it is often the case that they are upsetting. Consider, for example, the theory of evolution. It has upset many religious groups since it was first promulgated, and it continues to upset many religious groups.

REAL GRE: Verbal: 730; Quant: 710 PowerPrep 1: Verbal: 750; Quant: 720 PowerPrep 2: Verbal: 670; Quant: 740

First, let me thank everyone on the TestMagic forums for helping me out. Big props to you guys. I would like to write a story about my testing experience, but I'm exhausted so I'll keep it short. I got verbal before quant, so by the time I got to quant I was knackered; I thought this was unfortunate because I typically scored higher on verbal than quant in practice exams and I REALLY wanted a high quant score more than a high verbal score. For the record, my PowerPrep scores were: PP Test 1: V:750; Q:720 PP Test 2: V:670; Q:740

Thank you sueka, that makes sense. I was making an easy problem way too difficult...

The question reads as follows: OA is 1/6. Here is my reasoning: The even numbers between 1 and 9 are 2, 4, 6, and 8. The question reads that two DIFFERENT numbers are to be chosen, so no repeats (e.g., 4 + 4). Thus, the only sum here that will equal 8 is 2 + 6. Now, to find the probability, we must first find the probability of choosing either one of the numbers: P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B). In this case, selecting two numbers in one of these random "turns" is impossible, so P(A and B) = 0, and P(choosing 2 or choosing 6) = P(choosing 2) + P(choosing 6) => (1/4) + (1/4) = 1/2. Then, on our second random "turn," there is a 1 in 3 chance of picking the other number out of the three remaining numbers. Since both "turns" are independent, we multiply the two probabilities: 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6. However, I feel that my reasoning is incorrect. For example, if the first number chosen is neither 2 nor 6, then the probability of choosing a 2 or 6 in the second "turn" would be 2/3. Help is appreciated. :D

The ETS website states that must bring only #2 pencils (no mechanical pencils allowed, nor pens) to the written test. It says nothing about whether you may bring any writing utensils to the computer-based test. I know scratch paper is provided; are pens and/or pencils also provided? Thank you!

Nova's GRE Math Bible covers the graphs of functions, but neither Barron's nor the ETS Math review cover the graphs of functions. I also have never seen such a problem in the PowerPrep questions, although I have yet to finish all of the exercises.

Sueka: So it appears that there is indeed a problem with Nova's book? It would never be correct to say simply--without any conditions made--that two separate flips of one coin are mutually exclusive events. They most certainly are independent of one another. Now, flipping both heads AND tails would be be an example of mutually exclusive events. Appropriately, the probability of flipping both in one flip is zero, and the probability of flipping one or the other in one flip is 1 (1/2 + 1/2).

That's not my understanding of the phrase mutually exclusive. My understanding is that if two events are mutually exclusive, then the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other (in other words, the occurrence of one DOES EFFECT the occurrence of the other). For independent events, on the other hand, the occurrence of one has NO EFFECT AT ALL on the occurrence of the other. These terms are not equivalent. Indeed, ETS distinguishes between them in the ETS Math Review:

I think I noticed a big problem in Nova's GRE Math Bible under the Probability section. Under "Consecutive Probabilities," the book reads: Maybe I've been studying so hard that I've gone crazy, but if two events don't affect each other in any way, they are INDEPENDENT, correct? Yet here it says they're MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! This is a big typo! Please be aware of it if you're studying using the GRE Math Bible!

You can point out that intelligence can just as easily be used for bad as it can be for good. For example, in a democracy the public may vote a president into office because he is extremely intelligent and they trust his intelligence. That president could use his intelligence to build a better society or he could use his intelligence to transform the democracy into a dictatorship. Another approach (you could combine this with the first one): Intelligence without wisdom or adequate foresight can lead to dangerous consequences. For example, extreme intelligence was required to develop the atomic bomb, but Einstein once said that his biggest regret in life was his contribution to the knowledge used to make the atomic bomb; he contributed to the deadliest man-made weapon ever. I hope this helps!

PROMPT: The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. "Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland." MY RESPONSE: This argument is problematic on multiple levels. First, it is not clear why shopping centers and houses cannot be built on Scott Woods if it becomes a school site. If there is some legal reason, then the author of the letter should state that is the case. Second, poor reasoning is used to defend Scott Woods' prospective transformation on the grounds that it may "continue to benefit [the] community as natural parkland." It is implied that because substantial acreage would (probably) be devoted to athletic fields, Scott Woods would still enjoy natural parkland. But athletic fields are by definition unnatural and may vary considerably in their level of agreeability to nature: they could, for example, be grass soccer fields, turf football fields, dirt baseball diamonds, or clay tennis courts. The author, to the detriment of the argument, never specifies. The author is also unsure whether the rationale for transforming Scott Woods (athletic fields) will even come to fruition (the author's uncertainty is indicated by the word "probably"). Since the argument rests on a single rationale (that Scott Woods ought to continue to benefit the community as natural parkland), then it is badly weakened by uncertainty over said rationale and would be proportionately strengthened by certainty. The author also concludes the argument weakly, asserting that "there would be no better use of land in [the] community than [building athletic fields], since a large majority of [the] children participate in sports." It's fallacious to conclude that because a large majority of children participate in sports, then there would be no better use of the land in the community. Perhaps an even larger majority of the children prefer playing in natural parkland to playing sports, or perhaps a large majority of the entire population, children included, prefer natural parkland to athletic fields. Moreover, natural parkland itself may also be equally conducive to certain sporting activities. The author's argument would benefit well from evidence that legal protections would prevent the building of shopping centers or houses at Scott Woods, and from certainty both that substantial acreage would be devoted to athletic fields and that there truly is no better use for land in the community than the athletic fields.

I wrote the essay under timed conditions for my first PowerPrep practice test. PROMPT: "The media (books, film, music, television, for example) tend to create rather than reflect the values of a society." MY RESPONSE: The media both create and reflect the values of a society. This is a natural observation because the relationship between the media and society is biconditional; it is symbiotic. For example, Victorian attitudes toward sexual desire were abundantly reflected in the contemporary media, in everything from songs extolling the virtues of chastity to pamphlets and books explaining how parents ought to raise their children in a sexually chaste way. This media onslaught, in turn, had a dichotomous effect on society: It both reinforced and strengthened the conservative values of some Victorians but spurred others to flout such strict mores. More recent examples include the media-created controversy over the Park51 community center, which is planned for construction two blocks away from the former site of the World Trade Center. The media has branded the community center the "Ground Zero Mosque." Framing the apparent controversy in these terms both creates and reflects society's values. The former (creation of values) is apparent--people who may otherwise repudiate a tactic like "guilt by association" are quick to apply it to millions of Muslims who never had anything to do with the September 11th attacks. The latter (reflection of values) is a less noticeable: For society's values to be shaped with such ease requires malleability, and in this case the debate over the Park51 building reflects society's distrust towards Muslims and latent but omnipresent anger over the September 11th attacks. Thus, society may exhibit certain values and the media may in turn reinforce (or unintentionally dissolve) those values, and the media's ability (or inability) to shape certain values in turn reflects the society it belongs to.

In both questions don't you just do 4/3(pi)(x) *Also, I assume cuboid means rectangular box...

I'm no math whiz, but the prompt doesn't exclude the possibility that the first attempt is heads. In fact, there are NO RESTRICTIONS except that heads occurs 8 times and tails 6 times out of 14 tosses. The second and third attempts being heads are not really restrictions because we're looking for a maximum number of heads. In any case, the first 8 tosses could possibly all be heads. Since the coin is tossed 14 times, and tails landed 6 times, then at least the last 6 tosses must be tails. This appears to be the only meaningful restriction; thus, only 8 tosses of heads--consecutive or otherwise--can maximally occur. It seems ©, that they are equal. Am I correct?

Small matter of spelling here: to price gouge (not gauge) is ask for an unreasonably high price.

Just popping in this thread to sincerely thank you, Paul; that was excellent. I will be back to give a more detailed reply later...

OK, quick question here: Are the quantitative practice sets in the PowerPrep software adaptive? I ask this because I've been studying Barron's math review for a long time and also took 2 (paper-based) model tests. I only did the first quantitative comparison practice set in PowerPrep, but it was very easy compared to the stuff in Barron's. However, I did stupidly miss the very first question in that first quantitative comparison set of practice questions because I misread a number. I wonder if this is why it was so easy. So are the practice sets adaptive or fixed; if they are fixed, then why am I wasting time studying all this difficult stuff in Barron's when the PowerPrep software seems so easy?

Hello all, I've studied through the entirety of Barron's 18th edition math review and the math review provided by ETS in Powerprep. I have encountered a few stumbling blocks along the way. (1.) One way of comparing fractions is to cross-multiply them. I don't understand how you can tell which product represents which fraction. E.g., cross-multiply 1/3 and 3/8. The result is that since 3 x 3 > 8 x 1, then 3/8 > 1/3. How can I know that (3 x 3) is the product that represents 3/8 and that (8 x 1) is the product that represents 1/3? (2.) When dealing with two ratios that do not combine easily to form an extended ratio (i.e., the number the "bridges" the two ratios is different), then you can multiply the two ratios together to get a new ratio that consists of the "outer" numbers of the new extended ratio. Then to get the "middle" (bridge) number of the extended ratio, you must multiply the bridging numbers of both original ratios. My question is why--I don't have a good mathematical understanding of why we perform these particular operations to get a new extended ratio. (3.) How can I tell if a particular word problem is a weighted average? In Barron's book, for example, two problems of average speed are identical except that in the first problem, you're given time and speed and in the second problem you're given distance and speed. The first can be solved with weighted averages and the second cannot. I don't really understand why. (4.) The probability that 2 people chosen at random were born on the same day of the week = 1/49, correct? They are independent events (hence "at random"); thus, P(E and F) = P(E) x P(F) = 1/7 x 1/7. I have questions about specific problems on the PowerPrep math review. It's freely distributed and I've seen questions from it posted here before, so I assume it is OK to. 1. ARITHMETIC, #3 (b): 100.26 / 1.2 2. ARITHMETIC, #6: List all of the positive divisors of 372. 3. ALGEBRA, #14: Pat invested a total of $3,000. Part of the money yields a 10 percent interest per year, and the rest yields 8 percent interest per year. If the total yearly interest from this investment is $256, how much did Pat invest at 10 percent and how much at 8 percent? x + y = 3,000 (3,000 - x)(10%) + (3,000 - y)(8%) = 256 Simple substitution allowed me to conclude that y = 800, thus x = 2,200. Doesn't this mean that I'm right, i.e., that $2,200 was invested at 10 percent interest and $800 at 8 percent interest? DATA ANALYSIS, #9. From a box of 10 light bulbs, 4 are to be removed. How many different sets of 4 bulbs could be removed? DATA ANALYSIS, #10. A talent contest has 8 contestants. Judges must award prizes for first, second, and third places. If there are no ties, (a) in how many different ways can the 3 prizes be awarded, and (b) how many different groups of 3 people can get prizes? DATA ANALYSIS, #14. (b) DATA ANALYSIS, #14. © And now, generally speaking.... Why does the Addition Law [P(E or F) = P(E) + P(F) - P(E and F) require that you subtract P(E and F)? It seems it's because you must exclude the possibility of both events occurring; however, P(E or F) represents the probability that at least one of the two events occurs, not ONLY one or not ONLY the other... The data analysis portion of the math review included calculations of mean and standard deviation that could take a LONG TIME (in some cases a frequency distribution hurts more than it helps). How can I solve these measures faster? I know that I posted a lot of questions, and any help is much appreciated. Thank you!