I would never say that. Sorry didn't know that Shakespeare wrote prose. I meant to indicate feeling of happiness and joy.No offence!Sorrylunarpower wrote:Thanks.vinay1983 wrote:Ron! Can I write a descriptive prose in Shakespearean style about how I feel about seeing your answers. To the point, accurate, enlightening!
Shakespeare didn't write much prose, though. Mostly poetry. (His prose is mostly ironic/comic -- so you might be implying that my answers aren't easy to read at all.)
|:
Yes Sire!got it. Hmm it is difficult to express humour, but that is needed.Lil of humour goes along way!lunarpower wrote:Ha! No worries, of course I'm not offended. I'm just playing.
I guess it's hard to convey humor over the internet.
But I guess, if nothing else, there's a vocabulary lesson there: prose means, basically, "normal text". I.e., text that is not poetry.
guerrero wrote:Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of the adults who live in Idaho and indicated support for a recently proposed bill via an online poll, however, approximately 12% own livestock. Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock.
The conclusion drawn above is based on the assumption that _____________.
A)Adults who own livestock were less likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock.
B)The number of adults who indicated support for the bill via the online poll was greater than the number of adults who own livestock.
C)At least some of the adults in Idaho who own livestock responded more than once to the online poll.
D)Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.
E)Adults who own livestock in Idaho are more likely to indicate support for proposed legislation than are adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock.
OA D
The issue here, it seems, is the way you're thinking about the problem in general.ngalinh wrote:This question has the new "cover" with sub-group data, but its "seed" is actually classical: it has a big jump from evidence to conclusion, so needs a link as an assumption. But its quant-figure made my mind stray away from the main clue. I now come back and see it more clearly.
However, I has no chance to come back when I sit for the exam.
What kind of question I can ask myself at that time in order to quickly get out of the confused mind?
Absolutely true! My mind busily run into a corner to investigate an annoying piece of information but forgot to (or cannot) return to the big picture.lunarpower wrote: The issue here, it seems, is the way you're thinking about the problem in general.
You seem to know every corner in students' mind.I.e., you're busying yourself with trying to "classify" things -- subgroup data, "classic" pattern, etc. -- instead of actually thinking about the situation described in the problem.
Those kinds of thoughts should always be backups, to be used only if you are completely confused by the situation described in the passage.
A perfect analogy!If necessary, make an analogy -- same logic, but with more intuitive subject material -- to help you understand.
E.g.,
55% of people in California support the legalization of marijuana. However, 80% of people under 30 support the legalization of marijuana. Therefore, people under 30 must be more likely to smoke marijuana than older people.
Nah, I've just taught many different things, to many different ages of students. One thing I've learned, in general, is that terminology/classification kills understanding.ngalinh wrote:You seem to know every corner in students' mind. :(I.e., you're busying yourself with trying to "classify" things -- subgroup data, "classic" pattern, etc. -- instead of actually thinking about the situation described in the problem.
Those kinds of thoughts should always be backups, to be used only if you are completely confused by the situation described in the passage.
Thank you Ron, that is excellent thought you have shared, absolutely priceless.lunarpower wrote:Nah, I've just taught many different things, to many different ages of students. One thing I've learned, in general, is that terminology/classification kills understanding.ngalinh wrote:You seem to know every corner in students' mind.I.e., you're busying yourself with trying to "classify" things -- subgroup data, "classic" pattern, etc. -- instead of actually thinking about the situation described in the problem.
Those kinds of thoughts should always be backups, to be used only if you are completely confused by the situation described in the passage.
In other words, as soon as there are "names" or "labels" that people can stick on things, they just stop trying to understand those things. Instead, it just becomes a game of slapping meaningless labels on things.
As an example, the concept of losing/gaining electrons, from elementary chemistry, is very simple. Honestly it's something that a six- or seven-year-old would have very little trouble understanding. (An electron is "minus one". If you add that, you are minus one. If you take it away, you are plus one.)
But, as soon as those things are given the name "cation" and "anion", WHOA all the understanding just goes out the window. Unless students already understand the concept before they are given the names, it becomes an extremely difficult struggle to learn anything once the names are given. This is a pretty common theme.
Same thing is usually true in real life. Consider things that you put into your body. A contrast:
* When people think about medicines, they don't normally try to classify the medicines. (Jim takes Prozac for depression; he doesn't think about the fact that it's called a "SSRI". He takes Advil for pain, without thinking that it's called a "NSAID".)
As a result, they have a pretty good idea of which drugs do what things to them. They may not understand all the biochemistry, but they'll have a pretty detailed practical understanding.
* When people think about nutrition, though, they have the term "carbohydrate", which applies to a huge and diverse set of different types of foods -- everything from potatoes to high-fructose corn syrup. Because the label "carbohydrates" exists, the vast majority of people simply never formulate any understanding of the functions of, or the differences between, the foods that receive that label. So you get people who think that eating brown rice and eating sugar are basically the same. They don't understand the differences at all; some of them don't even know that there are differences.
It's all the label's fault.
If the label "carbohydrate" didn't exist, people would think more about how these foods actually affect them, and about the differences that exist between them.
Just keep these examples in mind. And make up more of them. (Imagine if you tried to make a five-year-old memorize the term "jerk" before the child understood what manners are! That would be a disaster.)
Never stick labels on things until you already understand how they work. Once that understanding is VERY solid, then go ahead and slap all the labels you want on things.
That's true to me. The reason is mental laziness (accept things already existing without questions), or the brain perceives some terms as superior things, beyond its ability to understand.lunarpower wrote:
Nah, I've just taught many different things, to many different ages of students. One thing I've learned, in general, is that terminology/classification kills understanding.
In other words, as soon as there are "names" or "labels" that people can stick on things, they just stop trying to understand those things. Instead, it just becomes a game of slapping meaningless labels on things.
That's an interesting discovery! Anyway sometimes a "term" can go before its "content". For example: some people say: Ron is an excellent test expert; Other's words: Ron's a great psychologist; More rumors: He's superior. But Ron may respond like this: Excuse me! I am more than the plus of all those things. So just call me: Ron! If you see 10 other Rons, remember, we are different, like brown rice and sugar.* When people think about nutrition, though, they have the term "carbohydrate", which applies to a huge and diverse set of different types of foods -- everything from potatoes to high-fructose corn syrup. Because the label "carbohydrates" exists, the vast majority of people simply never formulate any understanding of the functions of, or the differences between, the foods that receive that label. So you get people who think that eating brown rice and eating sugar are basically the same. They don't understand the differences at all; some of them don't even know that there are differences.
It's all the label's fault.
If the label "carbohydrate" didn't exist, people would think more about how these foods actually affect them, and about the differences that exist between them.
That's clear, Master! (wait a minute, I have to study more about the word "Master")Never stick labels on things until you already understand how they work. Once that understanding is VERY solid, then go ahead and slap all the labels you want on things.
Some people call me things I can't write here.ngalinh wrote:Ron, so how should we call you if we haven't learned about you well enough? :)
Do you think I'm "strict"?I agree with Vinay! I always dreamed I would have a strict Teacher like This, but never had one, except some from books. His words often pull me away from dark clouds (and put me into a hole--to think more)
Precisely. That's what you're fighting. You need to know the enemy before you can defeat it.That's true to me. The reason is mental laziness (accept things already existing without questions), or the brain perceives some terms as superior things, beyond its ability to understand.
Humm, we often keep a secret because we think only we have. Actually, it can be an universal phenomenonlunarpower wrote:
Some people call me things I can't write here.
(:
Haha, you still remember the historical story.There's always "Hey you (with all the hair)", I suppose.
Ok, I would not keep the secret here.
Do you think I'm "strict"?
I admit that I've never truly studied (due to some circumstances in the past). But one day a dream suddenly fell into my head and has been staying still there, so I have to start my journey of fighting bad habits.You need to know the enemy before you can defeat it.
Now you know the enemy. Next step is to defeat it.
How could you practice to fully control the mind like this? What kind of miracle mantras (or some sort of techniques) have you used at the moment you practice to get rid of instinctive concern, such as something relating to basic survival, which is always a priority of your subconscious?Your whole universe should consist of the 1 problem in front of you. Nothing else.
