Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yii Yann)
    Are you sure the qn said the clock was slower than her watch by 30 mins? I kinda remember it just saying its 30 mins slow..
    (Original post by sofiakarlsson95)
    Me too, did it really say anything about the clock in relation to her watch? Thought I read "30 min late" only
    (Original post by faezior)
    Yeah, it just said the clock was 30 minutes slow....
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So what did you answer?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    @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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daltohn)
    So what did you answer?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    arrived on time
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkman94)
    arrived on time
    Sorry, I meant Faezior!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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'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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yup I got this. Did you get on time then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sofiakarlsson95)
    Yep, that only makes it all the more annoying when you misread them
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did people put for the bicycle lock question ?

    000-999, how many possible combinations if every number is different?

    10x9x8= 720 -> C ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    We only get our results online on the 15th January on the Admissions Testing website.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.