lunarpower wrote:

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!

Thanks.

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.)
|:

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

lunarpower wrote: The issue here, it seems, is the way you're thinking about the problem in general.

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.

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.

lunarpower wrote:

ngalinh wrote:

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.

You seem to know every corner in students' mind.

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.

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.

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.

* 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.

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.

lunarpower wrote:
Some people call me things I can't write here.
(:

There's always "Hey you (with all the hair)", I suppose.

Do you think I'm "strict"?

You need to know the enemy before you can defeat it.

Now you know the enemy. Next step is to defeat it.

Your whole universe should consist of the 1 problem in front of you. Nothing else.