Page Summary
jimtbari.livejournal.com - (no subject)
adina-atl.livejournal.com - (no subject)
jimtbari.livejournal.com - (no subject)
frostfox.livejournal.com - (no subject)
adina-atl.livejournal.com - (no subject)
countrycousin.livejournal.com - (no subject)
countrycousin.livejournal.com - (no subject)
jimtbari.livejournal.com - (no subject)
mishalak.livejournal.com - (no subject)
countrycousin.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Active Entries
Style Credit
- Style: Sea and Salt for Nouveau Oleanders by
- Resources: OpenClipart and Oceanside Twilight
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags

no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 10:38 pm (UTC)What are the two possible answers you see? X cannot be 40%, because .4 is not *less than* .4. X cannot be 50%, because .5 is not *greater than* .5. It's the difference between "greater than" and "greater than or equal."
no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 10:43 pm (UTC)It's not 40%, so "none of the above" is correct. They should have said "none of these".
no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 10:44 pm (UTC)But then I got a grade 4 in CSE Maths in 1979 (they give you a grade 5 for writing your name on the paper).
I have number blindness to go with my dyslexia, I think.
But I have other redeeming skills, apart from maths and spelling.
FF
no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 11:18 pm (UTC)One of the questions was about -2 and two of the choices were "integer" and "whole number". There seems to be general agreement about the definition of integer and agreement about counting number and natural number (modulo inclusion of zero), but some people seem to use "whole number" as integer and some seem to use it as natural number.
I would say that is a bad question for an eighth grader. Use of terms for which there is general agreement seems much more appropriate.
(drat! those nits are tiny . . .)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 11:23 pm (UTC)None of the others??
(**&@# nits) :<) . . .
no subject
Date: 2005-10-23 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 06:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-28 03:15 am (UTC)