arq

I did my graduation in Bio-Chemistry and though i enjoy topics like Immunology, Genetics I do not wish to go into the field of research. Please suggest what else i could do and also list which Master's program I could take up for that.

The true test of the greatness of a work of art is its ability to be understood by the masses. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. The greatness of work of any art being gauged by its ability to be understood by the masses would mean putting a limitation, a kind of checkpoint to the value of that art which can seem to be unfair and hence, to certain extent I disagree with the stated claim. Greatness of any work of art is measured by the amount of efforts that have gone in to make it what it is and the thoughts that substantiate it. As an example of this, if we have a painting that carries in it, the painter's immense passion and hard work in the form of sleepless nights and which holds great value for him, would we measure its greatness by the number of people who can interpret the thoughts in it ? What if people seeing it are oblivious to the purpose behind it. Would we call them capable enough to judge something just by the look of it ? There have been many instances in history in the form of controversial books written by obscure authors, that caught very little attention in the beginning cause it wasn't taken by the masses very well but after giving it sometime, probably an event that could be related to it, its popularity surged. Here, we can not say that the book suddenly attained greatness or suddenly became worth reading only when people accepted it. It was a book before as well, the greatness lied in its ability to talk about relevant issues, its ability to arouse interest, and not in its ability to be understood by the masses. A book like Name of the Rose which considering the subject it deals with may not be comprehended by the masses but that sure does not undermine the greatness of the book or the author who could write it. People having knowledge about the subject it deals with would vouch for its greatness, regardless if the copies it sold were not innumerable like those of books that can be easily understood. Ability to be understood by masses is a limitation put on the value of the art work as it could be considered enlightening by a given set of people but on the other hand considered nothing important by the other. Art comes in various forms and it is only he who has the in depth knowledge of it can appreciate its value and it is only him who should hold the power of making judgements about its greatness. My mother cooking a chicken dish for me would be great, but only if I am a non-vegetarian. It will not appeal a room full of vegetarians regardless of the possible fact that non-vegetarians could die for it. Thus, appeal to the masses is no way of gauging the greatness of a work of art. Its value being appreciated by a limited but knowledged few should be enough.

Hey all. I need to give a presentation on genomic polymorphism in college. Does anyone know any site/e-book where i could get to know about polymorphism in depth ? All that google is giving me is some computational polymorphism. Any ideas to make the presentation interesting and all are also welcome ! Thanks so much !

I think i finally got your exact 80% ( no approximation). Its gonna be real long but am explaining it so anyone could point out any mistake in my method-- Consider total students (Susceptible to TB and not susceptible)= 100. Out of this let X= No. of students susceptible to TB. So, 100-X= Students Not susceptible. Info. given regarding X 10% of X are less than 20, that means we can take 90% of X are more than or equal to 20. Info. given regarding 100-X, i.e. Not susceptible group 40% of (100-X) = students not susceptible to TB and are more or equal to 20. Now, forming equations. It has been given that 9% of total students are more than or equal to 20 years of age and are susceptible to TB. Since the group we are considering here is the X, so we can compare it with the info given earlier. 90% of X = 9% of total students( which we took 100) so, (9/10)X= 9 hence we get the value of X =10. The question asks us to find % of students 20 yrs or more that are NOT susceptible to TB. For this we have to look at the info regarding our (100-X) group above. so we basically have to find 40% of (100-X). Putting the value of X as 10, we can find 40% of 90 which is 36 students. That means 36 students are Not susceptible to TB and are more than or equal to 20 yrs in age. BUT the question doesn't end here. It asks us what % of of students that are 20 yrs or more are not susceptible to TB. So we have to find this % out of the total number of students that are 20yrs or more regardless whether they are susceptible to TB or are not. That means we have the equation: (?%) of (all the students aged 20 yrs or more)= 36 and the total number of students aged 20yrs or more= 9+36 = 45( from the two groups taken above) therefore we have (?%) of 45= 36 and we know 80% of 45 will give us 36. Hence the answer is option E. 80% Am not sure if my method is absolutely right but thats how I am getting 80%

NO !! That is not the right answer. It is specifically mentioned that A and B are independent events. The formula P(A or B)= P(A)+P(B)-P(A and B) is used when events are not independent ! When the events are independent, we just use P(A or B)= P(A) +P(B). So the answer is option "D" , 0.80.

Thanks so much. I do agree with the fact that my analysis is lacking a proper introductory paragraph. And the ETS instructions went something like this- Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

Hey, i tried solving these questions but i would request you to check the answer to the first one. I am getting B i.e. 36% as the the answer. And for the last one you are getting C cause you started with equal earning for both X and Y by which i mean you applied the 40% increase or 20% loss resp. to the same earning whereas we don't know if we have to start with equal earning for X and Y. Hence, D as the answer.

The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the principal of Greenwood School to the parents of all incoming kindergartners."We have decided to institute a policy of all-day kindergarten, instead of half-day kindergarten, for all students at Greenwood School. All-day kindergarten will help all our students achieve at their highest levels. The classes will be 'tracked'; so that average students are together, but high-achieving and low-achieving students will be put together in classes. In this way, the high-achieving students will be able to help pull the low-achieving students up to their level, so that no student falls behind. The all-day kindergarten classes will cover the same material previously covered in the half-day kindergarten classes, but will go at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences. In addition, the students will receive extra instruction in music, art, and physical education. One of the greatest benefits of the plan, however, is that students will be in a structured environment for longer hours, reducing the numbers of hours that otherwise would be wasted at home or in day care." The principal assumes that this system of classes being tracked would yield positive results without considering the fact that it can be counterproductive. Also, being just in kindergarten we can not literally classify children as high achieving and low achieving. The low achieving should students should rather be addressed as those requiring some additional help. Putting them with the other bright students would not necessarily help them do better. Each student is different and the problems should be addressed by the teachers at an individual's level. Also, the performance of some of the bright students might get affected in this kind of grouping. With such a drastic change in the system by increasing the hours, keeping the material same would not help. Children can truly benefit with this only if they are taught something extra, something more that would help them further. And again going at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences might not prove to be beneficial for all the students alike. While some kids have a better grasping power, giving more time to do the same topics or doing them again might waver their attention and make them disinterested. Of all the things, the principal fails to consider the fact that for kids the first teachers are their parents. What they learn at home from their parents, staying with their siblings is something no institute can teach them. Seeing their parents and sibling follow certain rules and the family doing things in a certain way would help them imbibe the values better than what their text books can teach. Thus, kids do not literally 'waste' their time at home. Kids need to learn the importance of having a family and understand how loved ones stick with each other in testing times. With the value of a family being increasingly undermined. kids need to learn to value and feel lucky being a part of one. As they would grow, given the present education system they would as it is have to move out and fend for themselves, so at this tender age they should spend as much time as they can with their parents and the kindergartens need not be so very ambitious and give the kids their own time to bloom and grow. Being so strict at such an early stage would only hamper their emotional and mental development.

"Only once one has known real sadness can one feel true happiness." We can rephrase this by writing -' we understand the true worh of something only once we have lost it'. Not conveying particularly the same meaning but somewhat similar both phrases signify that we have to go through something unpleasant in order to understand the worth of our happiness. The statement, Only once one has known real sadness canone feel true happiness is thus justified. People who have been through tough times, have seen the dark side of life can appreciate true happiness at its best compared to those who consider it only inevitable and something they don't really think they do not deserve thus undermining the true value of happiness. For example, we have a rich businessman's son who has always had the biggest luxuries at his beck and call would not really value or understand the happiness of getting a new swanky car of which he would probably have many in his garage. Ask a middle class worker who has seen the darkest of days when he probably had to work overtime to enroll his kids to a school, for him getting a new drive would mean happiness not only for him but his entire family which for him would be something very valuable. Thus there are testing times which require us to be thick skinned and put up a brave front but it is only after we have been through our share of hardships can we feel true happiness. As said by a great poet, "when winters come, can spring be far behind?" It is very important for one to know real sadness, to desperately long for happiness in order to actually, truly feel the happiness when it finally hails. Another example can be a student preparing for exams, only once he has known sadness in terms of sacrificing movies, parties with friends etc. to study hard, can he get the true happiness of getting good grades and possibly admission in a reputed College of his choice. The sadness is what makes us realize the importance of happiness. Had we been happy all the time we would take it for granted and would not value it enough. Sadness makes us realize the balance in life. The negatives and positives. As in maths two negatives always add up to positive

The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the principal of Greenwood School to the parents of all incoming kindergartners."We have decided to institute a policy of all-day kindergarten, instead of half-day kindergarten, for all students at Greenwood School. All-day kindergarten will help all our students achieve at their highest levels. The classes will be 'tracked'; so that average students are together, but high-achieving and low-achieving students will be put together in classes. In this way, the high-achieving students will be able to help pull the low-achieving students up to their level, so that no student falls behind. The all-day kindergarten classes will cover the same material previously covered in the half-day kindergarten classes, but will go at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences. In addition, the students will receive extra instruction in music, art, and physical education. One of the greatest benefits of the plan, however, is that students will be in a structured environment for longer hours, reducing the numbers of hours that otherwise would be wasted at home or in day care." The principal assumes that this system of classes being tracked would yield positive results without considering the fact that it can be counterproductive. Also, being just in kindergarten we can not literally classify children as high achieving and low achieving. The low achieving should students should rather be addressed as those requiring some additional help. Putting them with the other bright students would not necessarily help them do better. Each student is different and the problems should be addressed by the teachers at an individual's level. Also, the performance of some of the bright students might get affected in this kind of grouping. With such a drastic change in the system by increasing the hours, keeping the material same would not help. Children can truly benefit with this only if they are taught something extra, something more that would help them further. And again going at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences might not prove to be beneficial for all the students alike. While some kids have a better grasping power, giving more time to do the same topics or doing them again might waver their attention and make them disinterested. Of all the things, the principal fails to consider the fact that for kids the first teachers are their parents. What they learn at home from their parents, staying with their siblings is something no institute can teach them. Seeing their parents and sibling follow certain rules and the family doing things in a certain way would help them imbibe the values better than what their text books can teach. Thus, kids do not literally 'waste' their time at home. Kids need to learn the importance of having a family and understand how loved ones stick with each other in testing times. With the value of a family being increasingly undermined. kids need to learn to value and feel lucky being a part of one. As they would grow, given the present education system they would as it is have to move out and fend for themselves, so at this tender age they should spend as much time as they can with their parents and the kindergartens need not be so very ambitious and give the kids their own time to bloom and grow. Being so strict at such an early stage would only hamper their emotional and mental development.