dreamneo

I applied to MIT, CMU, Stanford, UCB, GIT, UW, UIUC, UMCP, UCSD, UMass. Hope to get in Top 4... However, I know it's tough and good scores don't guarantee anything.

I got my dream score.. which is 880 (98%) Thank you very much for your help, guys.

For those who are waiting for the AGRE score, should they send the GRE general score report first to the school? double money... For instance, to Stanford, by Dec.13 I should send the GRE general score report? Please let me know~

I am trying to register for GRE subject online. However, after I write down the personal information and click to submit, it keeps showing the message that the session ID is not valid and plz try again. I have tried last three days bec I thought it's temporal error on server side. What can I do? Does anyone have same problem? Plz help~!

Thanks! Good document! :>

That's my concern, too. I intend to apply this year-end and wonder how I can meet the deadline. I wanted to be an early-bird.. but GRE CS makes it impossible. What could we do? Could we protest? Hmm~~~

Thanks for all messages! My last score was 720/750. For Q section that time, I was not able to answer last 5 questions because of time shortage. For my second preparation, I just concentrated to solve math problems on computer to make myself accustomed to CBT. It was a week of preparation. However, for my first exam, I prepared for 2 months to memorize word lists and solve POWERPREP problems.. I also used the books from ACRO, Peterson's and POWERPREP from REA. Good luck!!

Thanks for the advices that u guys have given to my last posting.. One thing now I am sure is that you guys should never leave any question unanswered. If you run out of time, just choose random answer and try to concentrate on the last question. Anyway this time, I had 6~10 mins when I finished my Verbal and Quant.. I was quite surprised about verbal section that I got even better score. My strategy was to pick an answer without thinking too much on reading problems. I saw my record on last exam and found out that spending more time on a reading question often lead me to choose wrong answer. Believe the first impression.. (Sure.. u may hav to be ready enough with practices) For Quant section, I didn't re-check my answers concerning about my last experience of time shortage. This would work for most engineering students I guess.. I am so relieved now.. My last AWA score was 4.5 This time I expect 4~5.. Actually I am worried about it.. but I will never take this exam again! :> Thanks! Anyway.. I am applying for CS this year-end.

T.T Yes! That's correct. I just got my score report n checked my answers from ETS site. Oh my gosh.. I chose correct answers until 24th problem without any mistake.. I shoud have chosen any answer for last few questions~ You guys! Good luck. Do not make same mistakes :>

I took GRE test today. I got 720/750.. I am quite satisfied with my verbal score but not with math.. I was too relaxed when I took Q section, so finally I was not able to answer last 2~4 questions.. T.T Was it better to pick any answer or leave it blank? Anyway, I am looking forward to apply for Standford, MIT CS this year end.. so I wonder if it would be ok to have Q 750. What do you think guys? Though I got good score for V section, I am not very happy bec I worry I may need to take GRE one more time for better Q score T.T Thanks~! MY other spec: GPA : 4.05/4.3 (4.2/4.3 CS only) from KAIST, one of the best in Korea. TOEFL : 287(6.0)

What do you think, guys? Plz check and give me some comments~ I need your help.. 165. The following appeared in a business magazine. "As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods." : First of all, the "Promofoods" company's claim that the product did not contain dangerous chemicals is totally wrong. It indeed contains three chemicals out of eight blamed chemicals. The chemists wrongly asserts that these three chemicals are also naturally found in other canned foods so it has no problem. However, the result doesn't tell about the amounts of the chemicals. There is a possibility that other canned foods don't contain those cemicals as much as the one from the company, so they don't cause illness. Furthermore, there is no confirmation that other foods are safe. They may have problems, too. Second, the argument wrongly assumes that eight most commonly blamed chemicals are the reason for the illness. The illness may be caused from other chemicals which are not yet found harmful. For example, in Korea, some companies threw out some chemicals to rivers because they were not confirmed as dangerous at that time. However, later on, the government found that those chemicals to cause diseases among people in the area near the factories. Like this, the cans may have other dangerous chemicals causing the illness. Another serious mistake is to ignore the possibility that nausea and dizziness are just symptoms of another disease. It may be latent causing nausea and dizziness, and later cause serious harm to people. In that case, the company should not only focus on chemicals causing dizziness and nausea, but also consider whole ingredients which may be dangerous. Finally, even if the chemicals are the real cause and they are not found in the products, there is a possibility that in other cans besides sampled cans there exists those chemicals. The company only gathered eight million cans, not all products. Even though chemicals are not in collected cans, we could not assume that they don't exist in other cans, too. The experiment should be applied to whole products if the company seeks to make sure that those chemicals are not contained in its product. As shown above, the argument has several fallacies undermining its validity. The company should analysis its product entirely, not just focusing on some chemicals, to prove that the products are safe. To prove a mathematical theory, one should prove that whole parts are true, not just that a part is true. Why not to confirm a product safe?

For me, it's like e d d e as same as the one most above.. I can't understand other's choice.. any explanation?

blue

51. The following appeared in a medical newsletter. "Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment." : The article asserts that every patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics from the result of an experiment. It seems reasonable at the first glance, but this argument has several fallacies weakening its validity. Most of all, the experiment it based on is not properly conducted. The experiment didn't control the different conditions of patients groups like age, severity of the injury, general health condition, which would affect the result greatly. Two patients groups should have similar condition on those, or it is hard to conclude that the result originated from the effect of antibiotics. For example, if one patient group is younger on average than the other group, it is much probable that they would get well sooner than the other. When people are young, they have stronger ability to be cured naturally, not through artificial medication. Even worse, if the younger group was the one treated with antibiotics, it could distort the result more. Second, two different doctors conducted the experiment, and it weaken the validity also. The doctors may have different skills. One may have better ability to deal with patients with muscle strain. If the difference of the recuperation time is rendered from two doctors' that skill, the assertion is totally wrong. The experiment should be controlled by one doctor if it targets to prove the effectiveness of antibiotics. Finally, the claim has it that the average recuperation time of the second patients group was not significantly reduced. How much is what we can call significant here? the claim doesn't explain about it at all. What if the difference was only 5% and it's not a big difference for most of us, but a big one for the writer? There should be elaborated comments on this difference. Sometimes some writers who hide numbers from articles and exaggerate results through rhetoric. In sum, this argument is not well reasoned. The experiment, used for the evidence, is not well designed, too. It rather failed to prove the effectiveness of antibiotics due to its lack of control on other factors except the use of the medicine. The argument hastily made the conclusion so it should be refined through better designed and controlled experiments.

184. "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data." : The speaker asserts that it is a serious mistake to hurriedly theorize before getting data. Although there are some cases that theorizing without data or proof succeeded, it's only one in a million. I would like to make some points why it's so important to have data. Science itself has its foundation on data. Without data, there is no proof. Without proof, at least an evidence, a theory can't be called as a theory at all. For example, suppose that one sociologist theorize that one human race is superior to other races. Could we follow his assertion? Of course not. Even if the sociologist has enough data and proof of his theory, we would still resist to accept and such scholars would be impugned. How about such theories without proof? The reason why we accept theories like Newton's law, is that it has enough data to support its validation. Sometimes, bright human intuition make it up, the need of enough information to theorize. Even in that case, the theories should be refined through the actual experiments and according to its result though the core concept would not be changed. In my case, once I thought I made strong algorithm or program during my study of computer science. I was so proud of it but the actual result was far from my expectation. I got to know I didn't make it best for average cases, which means usual cases covering most of our daily life. It worked best for restained cases only. However, without changing the core, I was able to sophiscate my program to cover well most cases and finally succeeded! That's also true for theorization. Theories by intuition or whatsoever need data to correct and improve it. There is almost no one who can make good theories without data and inspiration from it. I said almost no one above, instead of saying no one. That's because there are some people who actually made theories only with their intuition and instinct. I would rather call them supernatural geniuses and Albert Einstein would be the best example. His theories which affects physics and human race as whole were merely from his brain. His theories proved by many scientists and experiments later and gave us great tools to deal with the universe. Anyway such heroes, we should appreciate but they are also one in a million cases like theories without data. In sum, We could only theorize something with enough data so that we could believe it and accept it as a "theory". In some cases, we get an idea by chance and try to theorize but it still needs refinement with data. Surely, we also should hope or even pray for someone like Einstein to bring up his bright ideas and theories for good of all of us.