The Oxford TSA thread - 2015 applicants - 5th Nov 2014
Scroll to see replies
guys help me.......
it said both adult and child prices were multiples of 10p and the child price is more than half the adult price but less than full adult price.
2xchild + 1adult = £1.20.......
it said both adult and child prices were multiples of 10p and the child price is more than half the adult price but less than full adult price.
2xchild + 1adult = £1.20.......
Original post by faezior
@milkman: No, you're right. The question did indeed talk about the 30 mins slow clock in relation to the 10 mins fast watch. However, it doesn't matter whether you collapse the two or not, as logically you should still get the same answer in the end if everything is processed correctly.
I refer you to your post earlier:
"It's on time. Train was 10 mins late, walking took her 15 mins more, finding the room took her 5 mins more, clock in room was 30mins slower. than her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time.
The watch means that the train was not late, and the clock in the room is 20mins behind time.
She was 20mins late behind actual time so it all evens out to her arriving on time."
In the bolded section, you have already accounted for the watch by cancelling it out with the train.
In the underlined section, you accounted for both the watch and the clock together to give you the result of -20 (i.e. 10-30).
You have accounted for the watch twice.
I refer you to your post earlier:
"It's on time. Train was 10 mins late, walking took her 15 mins more, finding the room took her 5 mins more, clock in room was 30mins slower. than her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time.
The watch means that the train was not late, and the clock in the room is 20mins behind time.
She was 20mins late behind actual time so it all evens out to her arriving on time."
In the bolded section, you have already accounted for the watch by cancelling it out with the train.
In the underlined section, you accounted for both the watch and the clock together to give you the result of -20 (i.e. 10-30).
You have accounted for the watch twice.
So what did you answer?
Posted from TSR Mobile
@milkman: No, you're right. The question did indeed talk about the 30 mins slow clock in relation to the 10 mins fast watch. However, it doesn't matter whether you collapse the two or not, as logically you should still get the same answer in the end if everything is processed correctly.
I refer you to your post earlier:
"It's on time. Train was 10 mins late, walking took her 15 mins more, finding the room took her 5 mins more, clock in room was 30mins slower. than her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time.
The watch means that the train was not late, and the clock in the room is 20mins behind time.
She was 20mins late behind actual time so it all evens out to her arriving on time."
In the bolded section, you have already accounted for the watch by cancelling it out with the train.
In the underlined section, you accounted for both the watch and the clock together to give you the result of -20 (i.e. 10-30).
You have accounted for the watch twice.
I refer you to your post earlier:
"It's on time. Train was 10 mins late, walking took her 15 mins more, finding the room took her 5 mins more, clock in room was 30mins slower. than her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time.
The watch means that the train was not late, and the clock in the room is 20mins behind time.
She was 20mins late behind actual time so it all evens out to her arriving on time."
In the bolded section, you have already accounted for the watch by cancelling it out with the train.
In the underlined section, you accounted for both the watch and the clock together to give you the result of -20 (i.e. 10-30).
You have accounted for the watch twice.
Original post by Daltohn
arrived on time
Original post by milkman94
arrived on time
Sorry, I meant Faezior!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by faezior
@milkman: No, you're right. The question did indeed talk about the 30 mins slow clock in relation to the 10 mins fast watch. However, it doesn't matter whether you collapse the two or not, as logically (are you sure....) you should still get the same answer in the end if everything is processed correctly.
I refer you to your post earlier:
"It's on time. Train was 10 mins late, walking took her 15 mins more, finding the room took her 5 mins more, clock in room was 30mins slower. than her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time.
The watch means that the train was not late, and the clock in the room is 20mins behind time. (
She was 20mins late behind actual time so it all evens out to her arriving on time."
In the bolded section, you have already accounted for the watch by cancelling it out with the train.(this statement is wrong)
Think of it this way. If you were 30mins late for an interview, and realised in fact it was just 20 mins late, and the clock in the room was 20 mins late, what would the clock show?
In the underlined section, you accounted for both the watch and the clock together to give you the result of -20 (i.e. 10-30).
You have accounted for the watch twice.
I refer you to your post earlier:
"It's on time. Train was 10 mins late, walking took her 15 mins more, finding the room took her 5 mins more, clock in room was 30mins slower. than her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time.
The watch means that the train was not late, and the clock in the room is 20mins behind time. (
She was 20mins late behind actual time so it all evens out to her arriving on time."
In the bolded section, you have already accounted for the watch by cancelling it out with the train.(this statement is wrong)
Think of it this way. If you were 30mins late for an interview, and realised in fact it was just 20 mins late, and the clock in the room was 20 mins late, what would the clock show?
In the underlined section, you accounted for both the watch and the clock together to give you the result of -20 (i.e. 10-30).
You have accounted for the watch twice.
I'm not accounting for the watch twice, I'm converting to actual time.
Maybe if I put it in equations it'll be easier.
Additional time spent on journey= Time spent finding the place, Time spent walking there = 20mins
Time on clock = Additional Time Spent on Journey - Time Clock is slow by
= 20mins-20mins=0mins difference
Therefore, she arrived on time. I don't see how this seems illogical ... If you still can't accept this, I have nothing else to say. I'm trying to accept your reasons, but it doesn't follow that accounting for a watch means you've corrected the time on the watch.
Original post by milkman94
I understand how hard it can be to realise you made a careless mistake or something, so unless I state so, when I make such claims, I make sure that they are accurate.
I'm am 100% sure that the question said that the clock was " 30mins behind the time on her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time". Perhaps in the rush for time, you overlooked that portion.
Nevertheless, I will appreciate it if fellow posters can back me up on this.
I'm am 100% sure that the question said that the clock was " 30mins behind the time on her watch, which was 10 mins ahead of time". Perhaps in the rush for time, you overlooked that portion.
Nevertheless, I will appreciate it if fellow posters can back me up on this.
Yup I got this. Did you get on time then?
Original post by Dprince
Yup I got this. Did you get on time then?
yup... i thought it was quite a simple and straightforward question... I found the grandchildren question to be much more convoluted.
Original post by milkman94
yup... i thought it was quite a simple and straightforward question... I found the grandchildren question to be much more convoluted.
Yep, that only makes it all the more annoying when you misread them
What did you get for that one?
Original post by sofiakarlsson95
Yep, that only makes it all the more annoying when you misread them
What did you get for that one?
What did you get for that one?
unfortunately due to my close reading of all the questions i did not have the time to do some. that question was one of them. i put it as ruth
Hahaha ok I concede! I had to think it through a couple more times to shrug off my misconceptions, but yes, you're right, it should indeed be on time.
It should be Ruth for that question; (351 - 50) modulo 7 = 0
*Actually, I don't recall what the exact name was. But it was the last name to appear in the initial list but the fourth option, because they rearranged the names in the options just to be mean.
It should be Ruth for that question; (351 - 50) modulo 7 = 0
*Actually, I don't recall what the exact name was. But it was the last name to appear in the initial list but the fourth option, because they rearranged the names in the options just to be mean.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by milkman94
yup... i thought it was quite a simple and straightforward question... I found the grandchildren question to be much more convoluted.
Don't remember the grandchildren question. Had to guess quite a lot as I ran out of time.
Original post by badalyan
Did anyone choose essay 3 (child labour) and link it to economics and international relations as well as a bit of ethics, saying that the western nations should not refuse to trade with those countries?
Yes, I did.
Same argument and simillar points it seems.Original post by faezior
Hahaha ok I concede! I had to think it through a couple more times to shrug off my misconceptions, but yes, you're right, it should indeed be on time.
It should be Ruth for that question; (351 - 50) modulo 7 = 0
*Actually, I don't recall what the exact name was. But it was the last name to appear in the initial list but the fourth option, because they rearranged the names in the options just to be mean.
It should be Ruth for that question; (351 - 50) modulo 7 = 0
*Actually, I don't recall what the exact name was. But it was the last name to appear in the initial list but the fourth option, because they rearranged the names in the options just to be mean.
Yeah I remember Ruth being my answer I think.
the birthdays were 50th, 150th, 200th, 250th, and 123rd and 231 weren't they?
so 50th, 151st,201st,251st,124th and 232nd? 232-50/7 = 26 or something?
Agree it was the last name in the initial list though as they gave all the 50s first and then the odd 123 and 231 or whatever.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by maximator
Sorry, I am a little bit too lazy to read all the 30 pages that i have missed.
I recieved an email from STP some days ago:
You have to tell until 10th of November, wether you can attend an interview or not, if shortlisted.
So we should recieve the results before this date or?
I recieved an email from STP some days ago:
You have to tell until 10th of November, wether you can attend an interview or not, if shortlisted.
So we should recieve the results before this date or?
We only get our results online on the 15th January on the Admissions Testing website.
Original post by badalyan
Did anyone choose essay 3 (child labour) and link it to economics and international relations as well as a bit of ethics, saying that the western nations should not refuse to trade with those countries?
I did pretty much the same.
Original post by 08JOB
Can anyone remember their answer to the raw food one? I chose "raw food is no better for health than cooked food" because the passage seemed to be based on refuting the claim that raw food was better for you than cooked food, but I'm beginning to doubt myself
Don't worry about it mate, you're right. The conclusion was that "Raw Food was better for you than cooked food", with reasons 1. Cooked food is easier to digest, 2. Raw food has certain hazards. The introduction about the public's perception of raw food was just to set a context
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- (Official) Oxford Economics & Management (E&M) Applicants - 2022 Entry
- What are my chances of getting into Oxford off this info?
- Human Sciences Oxford applicants 2023-2024
- Human Sciences Applicants
- [Official] Oxford PPE Applicant Thread 2022
- Oxford Economics and Management Course
- How do you start preparing for the Oxford PPE admissions test?
- Do I stand a chance with A*A*A for E&M at Oxford?
- Human Sciences Applicants 2023
- LSE Economics L100 2024 Entry
- GCSEs needed for Oxford
- PPE
- Number of Access to H.E. applicants to Oxford University
- Is my uni application strong and what do I need to work on?
- How can I enhance my Oxford application with weaker GCSEs?
- Oxford: If my main interest is Neuroscience, is biology BA my best shot?
- TSA Oxford
- Rejected from Wadham PPE
- has anyone got a cambridge interview yet
- What are my chances of getting into oxford university for experimental psychology?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
