The Official 3/23/13 MCAT Thread

[Redpancreas]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Figured I'd start this one out. I'll be registering for the MCAT first thing tomorrow. Who else is taking it on this date? How do you all plan on studying over the school year?

 

[NuttyEngDude]

You should do this timed


--------------

Much has been said – and rightfully so – about Gerald Vizenor’s attack on terminal creeds. They are, essentially, an intellectual stopping point, the false and arrogant moment when an individual or institution claims that he/she/it fully understands something or someone. Louis Owens describes terminal creeds as “beliefs that seek to fix, to impose static definitions upon the world,” adding: “Such attempts are destructive, suicidal, even when the definitions appear to arise out of revered tradition”. Terminal creeds damage adherents because they presume nothing more can be learned. Terminal believers limit their own imaginations. According to Vizenor, they exist within the defunct vacuum of their own minds, forever separated from other people, ideas, and the world around them.

Vizenor writes against one-dimensional notions of culture and identity not only because such ideological absolutism is simplistic and destructive, but also, and more importantly, because terminal beliefs divide people from each other and from themselves. In an interview, Vizenor said: “I think [anthropology] separates people. The methodologies of the social sciences separate people from the human spirit. They separate people through word icons, methods that become icons because they’re powerful, because they’re rewarded by institutions – separate them from a kind of intellectual humanism, an integrity of humanism and the human spirit”. One of Vizenor’s goals in Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles is the opposite: he wants to foster a genuine intellectual connection among individuals – a shared intellectuality centered upon the imagination.

Bearheart poses many challenges, and readers risk falling into the easy trap of terminal belief if they fail to recognize not only what Vizenor criticizes in Bearheart, but also what he celebrates, namely, the ability of the imagination to link people together beyond restrictive definitions. Bearheart is an effort to foster freedom (intellectual, spiritual, physical, etc.) and to heal wounds (historical, social, personal, etc.).Vizenor’s trickster-like presentation – with its paradoxical blend of tragedy, satire, comedy, and pathos – compels readers to use their imaginations to interpret, challenge, and redefine conventional ways of thinking. Readers must struggle through an intentionally difficult novel that allows them to re-imagine the world and themselves. The process necessarily cultivates “an integrity of humanism and the human spirit,” to use Vizenor’s phrasing. The interpretive struggle heightens personal intellectuality and spirituality, which, according to Vizenor, has the power to bring people together.

This paradox – communal connection via intellectual individuality – is at the core of Vizenor’s message. The fictional world of Bearheart – which is to say, the modern world that we occupy – is broken, not just economically and materially, but imaginatively, a far more dangerous problem. Vizenor hopes to repair it by linking people together again, not necessarily within a “single clan,” as Silko does in her performative novel Ceremony, but within a community of active readers and thinkers.

Some of Vizenor’s strategies are quite straight-forward. His fictional author, Bearheart, addresses readers directly – even intimately – in the introductory Letter to the Reader, creating an immediate connection between narrator and audience that helps to break down the barrier separating and isolating individuals. Bearheart invites readers into his private reflections regarding a personal story that, nevertheless, has larger communal and global applications.

Nonetheless, Bearheart is elusive, to say the least. He teases readers with information, forcing them to fill in the gaps to make sense of the emerging narrative. This narrative technique serves a larger purpose. Reader response critic, Wolfgang Iser – whom Vizenor quotes in the headnotes of Narrative Chance – argues that modern texts, which are often fragmented and enigmatic, “make us aware of the nature of our own capacity for providing links”. As readers, we must complete the text; the end-result is an intellectual collaboration. Iser states that the literary text “is something like an arena in which reader and author participate in a game of the imagination”. Vizenor takes this “game of imagination” to its logical extreme, pushing readers to be more active and creative in the reading process. Their imaginative output necessarily designates readers as partners in the creation of meaning. Not only are they constantly forced beyond terminal creeds, but their collaboration posits the imagination as a shared site of intellectual rebellion and freedom.

Readers must struggle through a demanding novel that very purposefully challenges them to re-create the world and themselves. Vizenor has stated as much about Native texts: “If it’s written by a tribal person about tribal experience, it shouldn’t be so easily accessible to bourgeois consciousness”. Vizenor offers no easy answers or simple platitudes. Rather, he creates sometimes bizarre and often contradictory stories that defy most stereotypes. Craig Womack describes “Vizenor’s famously difficult style; its impenetrability, abstraction, theoretical jargon, puzzling contradictions. Parsing Vizenor’s prose and coming up with a reasonable explanation is a formidable task”. Vizenor forces readers to untangle complex theories and philosophies, and he complicates their efforts on purpose. In an interview, he states: “I choose words intentionally because they have established multiple symbolic meanings, and sometimes I put them in place so that they’re in contradiction, so that you can read it several ways. You can read it just for its surface trace and definition – lexical definition – or you can change the definition in this one and leave that one the same and there’s contention or agreement”. Vizenor intensifies the interpretative process by forcing flexibility from the reader.
Coulombe, Joseph L.. Reading Native American Literature. Taylor & Francis, 2011.





1. How would the author describe an indian tribe?

• - forever shfting like water in a river that can not be easily mastered or understood
• - similar to indigienous subcontinent Indians
• - mostly similar except for a few intellectual differences
• - beyond bourgeois consciousness

2. Bearheart is most likely?

• - a premed who spends too much time trolling on SDN
• - a modern day Indian chief
• - an indian author
• - a professor of anthropology

3. Two people read Bearheart and come to two competing conclusions about the book. This is most likely due to

• - a difference of lexical definitions
• - a conflict in stereotypes exploited by the author
• - the inability of the author to clearly state his intentions
• - the successful display of art over journalism

4. It can be inferred from the reading that the world of Bearheart most likely refers to:
I. the time of an old Indian clan
II. the 2010's
III. Indians during the creed wars of the 1700s

• - I only
• - III only
• - I and II
• - I, II, and III

5. As hinted by the passage, how would does the author feel about Vizenor?

• - perplexed at his writing style
• - mildy amused at the challenges he has for readers
• - euphoric
• - impressed at his handling of indian culture

6. What is the purpose of the article?

• - to stop prejudice
• - to analyze the differences of opinion as presented by Silko, Iser, and Womack
• - to review a potential best selling book
• - to present various literary constructs

7. Suppose a popular and much agreed upon paper was recently published in the "Journal of Human Evolution" that claims most of the recent Iniki tribe's economic an cultural problems are due to an over reliance on game animals which have recently dried up as a result of over hunting. Furthermore it is backed up by data of declining game popuations over a 30 year period. How would this affect Vizenor's viewpoints?

• - He would be forced to change his viewpoint
• - His opinions would be more supported
• - This would have no effect on his stance
• - He would need to change the name of Bearheart to something un-animal like

 

[JNingy]

You should do this timed


--------------

Much has been said – and rightfully so – about Gerald Vizenor’s attack on terminal creeds. They are, essentially, an intellectual stopping point, the false and arrogant moment when an individual or institution claims that he/she/it fully understands something or someone. Louis Owens describes terminal creeds as “beliefs that seek to fix, to impose static definitions upon the world,” adding: “Such attempts are destructive, suicidal, even when the definitions appear to arise out of revered tradition”. Terminal creeds damage adherents because they presume nothing more can be learned. Terminal believers limit their own imaginations. According to Vizenor, they exist within the defunct vacuum of their own minds, forever separated from other people, ideas, and the world around them.

Vizenor writes against one-dimensional notions of culture and identity not only because such ideological absolutism is simplistic and destructive, but also, and more importantly, because terminal beliefs divide people from each other and from themselves. In an interview, Vizenor said: “I think [anthropology] separates people. The methodologies of the social sciences separate people from the human spirit. They separate people through word icons, methods that become icons because they’re powerful, because they’re rewarded by institutions – separate them from a kind of intellectual humanism, an integrity of humanism and the human spirit”. One of Vizenor’s goals in Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles is the opposite: he wants to foster a genuine intellectual connection among individuals – a shared intellectuality centered upon the imagination.

Bearheart poses many challenges, and readers risk falling into the easy trap of terminal belief if they fail to recognize not only what Vizenor criticizes in Bearheart, but also what he celebrates, namely, the ability of the imagination to link people together beyond restrictive definitions. Bearheart is an effort to foster freedom (intellectual, spiritual, physical, etc.) and to heal wounds (historical, social, personal, etc.).Vizenor’s trickster-like presentation – with its paradoxical blend of tragedy, satire, comedy, and pathos – compels readers to use their imaginations to interpret, challenge, and redefine conventional ways of thinking. Readers must struggle through an intentionally difficult novel that allows them to re-imagine the world and themselves. The process necessarily cultivates “an integrity of humanism and the human spirit,” to use Vizenor’s phrasing. The interpretive struggle heightens personal intellectuality and spirituality, which, according to Vizenor, has the power to bring people together.

This paradox – communal connection via intellectual individuality – is at the core of Vizenor’s message. The fictional world of Bearheart – which is to say, the modern world that we occupy – is broken, not just economically and materially, but imaginatively, a far more dangerous problem. Vizenor hopes to repair it by linking people together again, not necessarily within a “single clan,” as Silko does in her performative novel Ceremony, but within a community of active readers and thinkers.

Some of Vizenor’s strategies are quite straight-forward. His fictional author, Bearheart, addresses readers directly – even intimately – in the introductory Letter to the Reader, creating an immediate connection between narrator and audience that helps to break down the barrier separating and isolating individuals. Bearheart invites readers into his private reflections regarding a personal story that, nevertheless, has larger communal and global applications.

Nonetheless, Bearheart is elusive, to say the least. He teases readers with information, forcing them to fill in the gaps to make sense of the emerging narrative. This narrative technique serves a larger purpose. Reader response critic, Wolfgang Iser – whom Vizenor quotes in the headnotes of Narrative Chance – argues that modern texts, which are often fragmented and enigmatic, “make us aware of the nature of our own capacity for providing links”. As readers, we must complete the text; the end-result is an intellectual collaboration. Iser states that the literary text “is something like an arena in which reader and author participate in a game of the imagination”. Vizenor takes this “game of imagination” to its logical extreme, pushing readers to be more active and creative in the reading process. Their imaginative output necessarily designates readers as partners in the creation of meaning. Not only are they constantly forced beyond terminal creeds, but their collaboration posits the imagination as a shared site of intellectual rebellion and freedom.

Readers must struggle through a demanding novel that very purposefully challenges them to re-create the world and themselves. Vizenor has stated as much about Native texts: “If it’s written by a tribal person about tribal experience, it shouldn’t be so easily accessible to bourgeois consciousness”. Vizenor offers no easy answers or simple platitudes. Rather, he creates sometimes bizarre and often contradictory stories that defy most stereotypes. Craig Womack describes “Vizenor’s famously difficult style; its impenetrability, abstraction, theoretical jargon, puzzling contradictions. Parsing Vizenor’s prose and coming up with a reasonable explanation is a formidable task”. Vizenor forces readers to untangle complex theories and philosophies, and he complicates their efforts on purpose. In an interview, he states: “I choose words intentionally because they have established multiple symbolic meanings, and sometimes I put them in place so that they’re in contradiction, so that you can read it several ways. You can read it just for its surface trace and definition – lexical definition – or you can change the definition in this one and leave that one the same and there’s contention or agreement”. Vizenor intensifies the interpretative process by forcing flexibility from the reader.
Coulombe, Joseph L.. Reading Native American Literature. Taylor & Francis, 2011.





1. How would the author describe an indian tribe?

• - forever shfting like water in a river that can not be easily mastered or understood
• - similar to indigienous subcontinent Indians
• - mostly similar except for a few intellectual differences
• - beyond bourgeois consciousness

2. Bearheart is most likely?

• - a premed who spends too much time trolling on SDN
• - a modern day Indian chief
• - an indian author
• - a professor of anthropology

3. Two people read Bearheart and come to two competing conclusions about the book. This is most likely due to

• - a difference of lexical definitions
• - a conflict in stereotypes exploited by the author
• - the inability of the author to clearly state his intentions
• - the successful display of art over journalism

4. It can be inferred from the reading that the world of Bearheart most likely refers to:
I. the time of an old Indian clan
II. the 2010's
III. Indians during the creed wars of the 1700s

• - I only
• - III only
• - I and II
• - I, II, and III

5. As hinted by the passage, how would does the author feel about Vizenor?

• - perplexed at his writing style
• - mildy amused at the challenges he has for readers
• - euphoric
• - impressed at his handling of indian culture

6. What is the purpose of the article?

• - to stop prejudice
• - to analyze the differences of opinion as presented by Silko, Iser, and Womack
• - to review a potential best selling book
• - to present various literary constructs

7. Suppose a popular and much agreed upon paper was recently published in the "Journal of Human Evolution" that claims most of the recent Iniki tribe's economic an cultural problems are due to an over reliance on game animals which have recently dried up as a result of over hunting. Furthermore it is backed up by data of declining game popuations over a 30 year period. How would this affect Vizenor's viewpoints?

• - He would be forced to change his viewpoint
• - His opinions would be more supported
• - This would have no effect on his stance
• - He would need to change the name of Bearheart to something un-animal like

pretty long passage...answers:
d c a a b b c
time: 8 mins

 

[Dark Ace]

You should do this timed


--------------

Much has been said – and rightfully so – about Gerald Vizenor's attack on terminal creeds. They are, essentially, an intellectual stopping point, the false and arrogant moment when an individual or institution claims that he/she/it fully understands something or someone. Louis Owens describes terminal creeds as "beliefs that seek to fix, to impose static definitions upon the world," adding: "Such attempts are destructive, suicidal, even when the definitions appear to arise out of revered tradition". Terminal creeds damage adherents because they presume nothing more can be learned. Terminal believers limit their own imaginations. According to Vizenor, they exist within the defunct vacuum of their own minds, forever separated from other people, ideas, and the world around them.

Vizenor writes against one-dimensional notions of culture and identity not only because such ideological absolutism is simplistic and destructive, but also, and more importantly, because terminal beliefs divide people from each other and from themselves. In an interview, Vizenor said: "I think [anthropology] separates people. The methodologies of the social sciences separate people from the human spirit. They separate people through word icons, methods that become icons because they're powerful, because they're rewarded by institutions – separate them from a kind of intellectual humanism, an integrity of humanism and the human spirit". One of Vizenor's goals in Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles is the opposite: he wants to foster a genuine intellectual connection among individuals – a shared intellectuality centered upon the imagination.

Bearheart poses many challenges, and readers risk falling into the easy trap of terminal belief if they fail to recognize not only what Vizenor criticizes in Bearheart, but also what he celebrates, namely, the ability of the imagination to link people together beyond restrictive definitions. Bearheart is an effort to foster freedom (intellectual, spiritual, physical, etc.) and to heal wounds (historical, social, personal, etc.).Vizenor's trickster-like presentation – with its paradoxical blend of tragedy, satire, comedy, and pathos – compels readers to use their imaginations to interpret, challenge, and redefine conventional ways of thinking. Readers must struggle through an intentionally difficult novel that allows them to re-imagine the world and themselves. The process necessarily cultivates "an integrity of humanism and the human spirit," to use Vizenor's phrasing. The interpretive struggle heightens personal intellectuality and spirituality, which, according to Vizenor, has the power to bring people together.

This paradox – communal connection via intellectual individuality – is at the core of Vizenor's message. The fictional world of Bearheart – which is to say, the modern world that we occupy – is broken, not just economically and materially, but imaginatively, a far more dangerous problem. Vizenor hopes to repair it by linking people together again, not necessarily within a "single clan," as Silko does in her performative novel Ceremony, but within a community of active readers and thinkers.

Some of Vizenor's strategies are quite straight-forward. His fictional author, Bearheart, addresses readers directly – even intimately – in the introductory Letter to the Reader, creating an immediate connection between narrator and audience that helps to break down the barrier separating and isolating individuals. Bearheart invites readers into his private reflections regarding a personal story that, nevertheless, has larger communal and global applications.

Nonetheless, Bearheart is elusive, to say the least. He teases readers with information, forcing them to fill in the gaps to make sense of the emerging narrative. This narrative technique serves a larger purpose. Reader response critic, Wolfgang Iser – whom Vizenor quotes in the headnotes of Narrative Chance – argues that modern texts, which are often fragmented and enigmatic, "make us aware of the nature of our own capacity for providing links". As readers, we must complete the text; the end-result is an intellectual collaboration. Iser states that the literary text "is something like an arena in which reader and author participate in a game of the imagination". Vizenor takes this "game of imagination" to its logical extreme, pushing readers to be more active and creative in the reading process. Their imaginative output necessarily designates readers as partners in the creation of meaning. Not only are they constantly forced beyond terminal creeds, but their collaboration posits the imagination as a shared site of intellectual rebellion and freedom.

Readers must struggle through a demanding novel that very purposefully challenges them to re-create the world and themselves. Vizenor has stated as much about Native texts: "If it's written by a tribal person about tribal experience, it shouldn't be so easily accessible to bourgeois consciousness". Vizenor offers no easy answers or simple platitudes. Rather, he creates sometimes bizarre and often contradictory stories that defy most stereotypes. Craig Womack describes "Vizenor's famously difficult style; its impenetrability, abstraction, theoretical jargon, puzzling contradictions. Parsing Vizenor's prose and coming up with a reasonable explanation is a formidable task". Vizenor forces readers to untangle complex theories and philosophies, and he complicates their efforts on purpose. In an interview, he states: "I choose words intentionally because they have established multiple symbolic meanings, and sometimes I put them in place so that they're in contradiction, so that you can read it several ways. You can read it just for its surface trace and definition – lexical definition – or you can change the definition in this one and leave that one the same and there's contention or agreement". Vizenor intensifies the interpretative process by forcing flexibility from the reader.
Coulombe, Joseph L.. Reading Native American Literature. Taylor & Francis, 2011.





1. How would the author describe an indian tribe?

• - forever shfting like water in a river that can not be easily mastered or understood
• - similar to indigienous subcontinent Indians
• - mostly similar except for a few intellectual differences
• - beyond bourgeois consciousness

2. Bearheart is most likely?

• - a premed who spends too much time trolling on SDN
• - a modern day Indian chief
• - an indian author
• - a professor of anthropology

3. Two people read Bearheart and come to two competing conclusions about the book. This is most likely due to

• - a difference of lexical definitions
• - a conflict in stereotypes exploited by the author
• - the inability of the author to clearly state his intentions
• - the successful display of art over journalism

4. It can be inferred from the reading that the world of Bearheart most likely refers to:
I. the time of an old Indian clan
II. the 2010's
III. Indians during the creed wars of the 1700s

• - I only
• - III only
• - I and II
• - I, II, and III

5. As hinted by the passage, how would does the author feel about Vizenor?

• - perplexed at his writing style
• - mildy amused at the challenges he has for readers
• - euphoric
• - impressed at his handling of indian culture

6. What is the purpose of the article?

• - to stop prejudice
• - to analyze the differences of opinion as presented by Silko, Iser, and Womack
• - to review a potential best selling book
• - to present various literary constructs

7. Suppose a popular and much agreed upon paper was recently published in the "Journal of Human Evolution" that claims most of the recent Iniki tribe's economic an cultural problems are due to an over reliance on game animals which have recently dried up as a result of over hunting. Furthermore it is backed up by data of declining game popuations over a 30 year period. How would this affect Vizenor's viewpoints?

• - He would be forced to change his viewpoint
• - His opinions would be more supported
• - This would have no effect on his stance
• - He would need to change the name of Bearheart to something un-animal like

time: 12 min 😡
answers in white below;

ccbcbdb probably bombed it EDIT: In hindsight, b is better choice for 6. Timing wouldn't be that bad if I hadn't gotten distracted.

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Spending the day reviewing and reorganizing my notes. While the constant feeling of "being behind" makes me want to push forward, I feel it would be wasted if I am losing ground that I've already covered.

Hope everyone else is making progress or at least feeling so 😛

I'll post the answers to the verbal passage at the end of the night.

 

[Entadus]

You should do this timed


--------------

Much has been said – and rightfully so – about Gerald Vizenor's attack on terminal creeds. They are, essentially, an intellectual stopping point, the false and arrogant moment when an individual or institution claims that he/she/it fully understands something or someone. Louis Owens describes terminal creeds as "beliefs that seek to fix, to impose static definitions upon the world," adding: "Such attempts are destructive, suicidal, even when the definitions appear to arise out of revered tradition". Terminal creeds damage adherents because they presume nothing more can be learned. Terminal believers limit their own imaginations. According to Vizenor, they exist within the defunct vacuum of their own minds, forever separated from other people, ideas, and the world around them.

Vizenor writes against one-dimensional notions of culture and identity not only because such ideological absolutism is simplistic and destructive, but also, and more importantly, because terminal beliefs divide people from each other and from themselves. In an interview, Vizenor said: "I think [anthropology] separates people. The methodologies of the social sciences separate people from the human spirit. They separate people through word icons, methods that become icons because they're powerful, because they're rewarded by institutions – separate them from a kind of intellectual humanism, an integrity of humanism and the human spirit". One of Vizenor's goals in Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles is the opposite: he wants to foster a genuine intellectual connection among individuals – a shared intellectuality centered upon the imagination.

Bearheart poses many challenges, and readers risk falling into the easy trap of terminal belief if they fail to recognize not only what Vizenor criticizes in Bearheart, but also what he celebrates, namely, the ability of the imagination to link people together beyond restrictive definitions. Bearheart is an effort to foster freedom (intellectual, spiritual, physical, etc.) and to heal wounds (historical, social, personal, etc.).Vizenor's trickster-like presentation – with its paradoxical blend of tragedy, satire, comedy, and pathos – compels readers to use their imaginations to interpret, challenge, and redefine conventional ways of thinking. Readers must struggle through an intentionally difficult novel that allows them to re-imagine the world and themselves. The process necessarily cultivates "an integrity of humanism and the human spirit," to use Vizenor's phrasing. The interpretive struggle heightens personal intellectuality and spirituality, which, according to Vizenor, has the power to bring people together.

This paradox – communal connection via intellectual individuality – is at the core of Vizenor's message. The fictional world of Bearheart – which is to say, the modern world that we occupy – is broken, not just economically and materially, but imaginatively, a far more dangerous problem. Vizenor hopes to repair it by linking people together again, not necessarily within a "single clan," as Silko does in her performative novel Ceremony, but within a community of active readers and thinkers.

Some of Vizenor's strategies are quite straight-forward. His fictional author, Bearheart, addresses readers directly – even intimately – in the introductory Letter to the Reader, creating an immediate connection between narrator and audience that helps to break down the barrier separating and isolating individuals. Bearheart invites readers into his private reflections regarding a personal story that, nevertheless, has larger communal and global applications.

Nonetheless, Bearheart is elusive, to say the least. He teases readers with information, forcing them to fill in the gaps to make sense of the emerging narrative. This narrative technique serves a larger purpose. Reader response critic, Wolfgang Iser – whom Vizenor quotes in the headnotes of Narrative Chance – argues that modern texts, which are often fragmented and enigmatic, "make us aware of the nature of our own capacity for providing links". As readers, we must complete the text; the end-result is an intellectual collaboration. Iser states that the literary text "is something like an arena in which reader and author participate in a game of the imagination". Vizenor takes this "game of imagination" to its logical extreme, pushing readers to be more active and creative in the reading process. Their imaginative output necessarily designates readers as partners in the creation of meaning. Not only are they constantly forced beyond terminal creeds, but their collaboration posits the imagination as a shared site of intellectual rebellion and freedom.

Readers must struggle through a demanding novel that very purposefully challenges them to re-create the world and themselves. Vizenor has stated as much about Native texts: "If it's written by a tribal person about tribal experience, it shouldn't be so easily accessible to bourgeois consciousness". Vizenor offers no easy answers or simple platitudes. Rather, he creates sometimes bizarre and often contradictory stories that defy most stereotypes. Craig Womack describes "Vizenor's famously difficult style; its impenetrability, abstraction, theoretical jargon, puzzling contradictions. Parsing Vizenor's prose and coming up with a reasonable explanation is a formidable task". Vizenor forces readers to untangle complex theories and philosophies, and he complicates their efforts on purpose. In an interview, he states: "I choose words intentionally because they have established multiple symbolic meanings, and sometimes I put them in place so that they're in contradiction, so that you can read it several ways. You can read it just for its surface trace and definition – lexical definition – or you can change the definition in this one and leave that one the same and there's contention or agreement". Vizenor intensifies the interpretative process by forcing flexibility from the reader.
Coulombe, Joseph L.. Reading Native American Literature. Taylor & Francis, 2011.





1. How would the author describe an indian tribe?

• - forever shfting like water in a river that can not be easily mastered or understood
• - similar to indigienous subcontinent Indians
• - mostly similar except for a few intellectual differences
• - beyond bourgeois consciousness

2. Bearheart is most likely?

• - a premed who spends too much time trolling on SDN
• - a modern day Indian chief
• - an indian author
• - a professor of anthropology

3. Two people read Bearheart and come to two competing conclusions about the book. This is most likely due to

• - a difference of lexical definitions
• - a conflict in stereotypes exploited by the author
• - the inability of the author to clearly state his intentions
• - the successful display of art over journalism

4. It can be inferred from the reading that the world of Bearheart most likely refers to:
I. the time of an old Indian clan
II. the 2010's
III. Indians during the creed wars of the 1700s

• - I only
• - III only
• - I and II
• - I, II, and III

5. As hinted by the passage, how would does the author feel about Vizenor?

• - perplexed at his writing style
• - mildy amused at the challenges he has for readers
• - euphoric
• - impressed at his handling of indian culture

6. What is the purpose of the article?

• - to stop prejudice
• - to analyze the differences of opinion as presented by Silko, Iser, and Womack
• - to review a potential best selling book
• - to present various literary constructs

7. Suppose a popular and much agreed upon paper was recently published in the "Journal of Human Evolution" that claims most of the recent Iniki tribe's economic an cultural problems are due to an over reliance on game animals which have recently dried up as a result of over hunting. Furthermore it is backed up by data of declining game popuations over a 30 year period. How would this affect Vizenor's viewpoints?

• - He would be forced to change his viewpoint
• - His opinions would be more supported
• - This would have no effect on his stance
• - He would need to change the name of Bearheart to something un-animal like

Time: 10 minutes
(I'm happy with that considering this is more than 1/6 of the 40 Q's we'll see on Verbal and only 1/6 of the 60 minutes we have to complete the section)
answers in white below:
1. D
2. B (A 😛)
3. A
4. C
5. B
6. C
7. C

 

[Entadus]

I've been busy with tutoring o-chem this weekend, and I've caught a little cold Sore throat 😡

I've done a little bit of bio, but not as much as I would have liked

I'm sorry I haven't been able to write a passage yet, don't worry guys I still plan to as soon as I can 🙂

 

[NuttyEngDude]

I've done a little bit of bio, but not as much as I would have liked

I'm sorry I haven't been able to write a passage yet, don't worry guys I still plan to as soon as I can 🙂

Thank you for doing this 🙂







I'm writing up the answers to the VR passage now, if anyone wants me to wait until tomorrow morning or do a "White color" cover of hte answers i can do that.........

 

[Entadus]

Much has been said – and rightfully so – about Gerald Vizenor’s attack on terminal creeds....

TL;DR

 

[Jr MD]

To any one using TBR books: How did you substitute the expression of genetic information chapter. Its the longest chapter i have EVER had to read in all my years of undergrad 🙁

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch Q using SDN Mobile

 

[NuttyEngDude]

TL;DR

so... would you say I have a gift of being able to find the worst crap ever to read? Lol

To any one using TBR books: How did you substitute the expression of genetic information chapter. Its the longest chapter i have EVER had to read in all my years of undergrad 🙁

Because i postponed the test from last summer, i intentionally picked classes that would help me for the MCAT. so last fall i took microbio and genetics and the material in this chapter was pretty much taught to me in its entirety. So I feel pretty well equipped to read it. But what I did last summer was read the TPR chapters on it, and use TPR material for this topic, ignoring the TBR material.

 

[NuttyEngDude]

I am posting this Blanked out but after a few days i'll edit hte message and remove the white color so that it is readable. In order to read it in the meantime, hit control-a or select the text. Fear the smileys....


So I tried to make a very difficult and tricky passage, hoping it wasn't too painful and hope it helps with the practice. Sticking with the assumption that passages range from 600-900 words, this article is 897 words. The article length, topic material plus question difficulty should dictate a longer time spent than the usual 7-8 minutes per passage. At least I've noticed when I do verbal I spend a long time on some passages and a shorter time on others. I also tried to put in trick questions that I've seen in practice and tried to replicate what I believe they are trying to test on the MCAT. Anyways, I will summarize the passage then answer the questions.

Passage Summary and my personal analysis
The passage starts from the beginning speaking about Gerald Vizenor, an author of some sort who rails against "terminal creeds." Hopefully it became obvious at some point that "terminal creeds" are stereotypes, beliefs, or behaviors that are ignorantly unchangeable. The author makes his point of view known early on that he wholeheartedly agrees with Gerald Vizenor. His language is pretty strong, using phrases like "false and arrogant" and stating that "terminal believers limit their own imaginations."

The author continues to agree with Vizenor adding to Vizenor's views that one-dimensional notions of culture and identity (again referring to terminal creeds or stereotypes) are simplistic and destructive. He more or less denounces the methodology of Athropology saying that it does damage and is self perpetuating. He then leads into the point of the article which is to review the book where all these ideas come from "Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles" -- this is the purpose of the article. He states this in the last sentence of paragraph two. "One of Vizenor's goals in Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles is the opposite: he wants to foster a genuine intellectual connection among individuals – a shared intellectuality centered upon the imagination."

The rest of the article (the following five paragraphs) discusses bearheart, how it is told and the masterful way that Vizenor challenges the reader to use their brains. The purpose of this is to tell the reader what to expect if they read the book, again it is a book review. He mentions other critics, but only as devices and evidence to support his own points in each following body paragraph.


Anyways, onto the questions…

1. How would the author describe an indian tribe?
A. - forever shfting like water in a river that can not be easily mastered or understood
B. - similar to indigienous subcontinent Indians
C. - mostly similar except for a few intellectual differences
D. - beyond bourgeois consciousness

Like I said before I was going to try to be tricky… 🙂 I had just listened to the EK audio osmosis verbal strategy and recalled that one of the tricks that verbal reasoning question creators do is write the question, then the answer, then scan the passage for possible traps. This is what I did for answer choice D. The author quotes Vizenor in saying that "If it's written by a tribal person about tribal experience, it shouldn't be so easily accessible to bourgeois consciousness." However, the proof is in the language. Vizenor says that writings made by a tribal person should not be easily accessible, this does not mean they are beyond beourgeois. Furthermore, this is referring to the writing, not the people themselves . But even with a leap to assume it refers to the people, it fails because again "not easily accessible" does not imply "beyond".
B is something I totally made up and should have been dismissed as nonsense. C and A hinge on the discussion of the first two paragraphs. The author agrees with Vizenor's anti-stereotypical stance but the words "terminal creed" take on more of a meaning than just "stereotypes" . He believes that "They are, essentially, an intellectual stopping point, the false and arrogant moment when an individual or institution claims that he/she/it fully understands something or someone" and he also believes in paragraph 2 that the people can not be grouped together the way an anthropologist would do. He believes people are individuals and different and that the intellect will pull them together. Additionally he writes about "…the easy trap of terminal belief if they fail to recognize not only what Vizenor criticizes in Bearheart, but also what he celebrates, namely, the ability of the imagination to link people together beyond restrictive definitions." To say they are mostly the same in any way goes against this. This should eliminate C.


2. Bearheart is most likely?
A. - a premed who spends too much time trolling on SDN
B. - a modern day Indian chief
C. - an indian author
D. - a professor of anthropology
This is stated directly in the passage in paragraph 5 "His fictional author, Bearheart, addresses readers directly – even intimately – in the introductory Letter to the Reader,"

3. Two people read Bearheart and come to two competing conclusions about the book. This is most likely due to
A. - a difference of lexical definitions
B. - a conflict in stereotypes exploited by the author
C. - the inability of the author to clearly state his intentions
D. - the successful display of art over journalism
A is another trap designed to pull you in. I intentionally chose this and placed it as the first answer choice because it was one of the last things you read in the next to last sentence of the passage. A lexical definition is a dictionary definition, the author uses it to label "surface trace and definition". Vizenor's meaning is that you can just take it at face value (the lexical definition) or at any point along the way you can choose to interpret something differently on a deeper level. While it is possible they may be using different dictionaries with different definitions (highly unlikely), the more appropriate answer and sort of the point of the bearheart book, is to smash stereotypes by using various literary devices. It should be noted that he does this in order to illuminate a richness in tribal culture. "Vizenor offers no easy answers or simple platitudes. Rather, he creates sometimes bizarre and often contradictory stories that defy most stereotypes."

4. It can be inferred from the reading that the world of Bearheart most likely refers to:
I. the time of an old Indian clan
II. the 2010's
III. Indians during the creed wars of the 1700s
A. - I only
B. - III only
C. - I and II
D. - I, II, and III
This is in the passage again in the 4th paragraph: "This paradox – communal connection via intellectual individuality – is at the core of Vizenor's message. The fictional world of Bearheart – which is to say, the modern world that we occupy – is broken, not just economically and materially, but imaginatively, a far more dangerous problem." The difficulty and trap I was trying to create in this was that you would only pick Choice 1. And ignore that the author is drawing parallel's to today's world, most likely overlooking it due to time pressure. Note, after writing this, i went back and modified question two to add "modern day indian chief" in case you got this question correct but decided to change answer to question two (tricky tricky and my apologies on that )

5. As hinted by the passage, how would does the author feel about Vizenor?
A. - perplexed at his writing style
B. - mildy amused at the challenges he has for readers
C. - euphoric
D. - impressed at his handling of indian culture
This one was another tricky question and I intentionally placed B in as a trap. It is certainly a true statement, if anything he is downright in love with vizenor's challenges, which take the form of literary trickster , "game of imagination", and the way vizenor forces his readers to think "beyond terminal creeds, but their collaboration posits the imagination as a shared site of intellectual rebellion and freedom." Everything goes back to terminal creeds and its ability to smash stereotypes which is why D is the best answer.

6. What is the purpose of the article?
A. - to stop prejudice
B. - to analyze the differences of opinion as presented by Silko, Iser, and Womack
C. - to review a potential best selling book
D. - to present various literary constructs
I *think* this one is straight forward. But if not then read my summary and analysis of the passage above. Note, I have no idea if it is potentially best selling or not, but that was added as an added element of trickiness.

7. Suppose a popular and much agreed upon paper was recently published in the "Journal of Human Evolution" that claims most of the recent Iniki tribe's economic an cultural problems are due to an over reliance on game animals which have recently dried up as a result of over hunting. Furthermore it is backed up by data of declining game popuations over a 30 year period. How would this affect Vizenor's viewpoints?
A. - He would be forced to change his viewpoint
B. - His opinions would be more supported
C. - This would have no effect on his stance
D. - He would need to change the name of Bearheart to something un-animal like
In retrospect I think I did a crappy job of writing this question. I was going for B as the answer with paragraph 2 being the defense of choice B. However, I think I could have changed the language such that C is not as gray area of a choice. So if you guys picked C then it is hard to argue against it. Anyways my defense for answer choice B is paragraph 2 with the idea that he really dislikes the anthropological establishment and something proving it would only solidify his opnions. But like I said, I left it open for choice C to be a valid answer so…. Oh well 🙂

So in creating this passage and question set, I tried to do a few things. One is to replicate the test experience in the sense of time restraint (long passage) and trickiness. For example, I tried to put a WTF question at the start to throw you off your game. I also tried to guess what you guys were thinking and then avoid those types of questions. For example, I did not ask what "terminal creed" was. This passage is rich in complexity, information and viewpoints, however and a lot of questions can be made from it.
Finally, if this was over the top, not logical, or not helpful then my apologies. these are pretty hard to create in actuality. The difficulty is in good questions, which is the complaint against kaplan and other practice materials.

 

[JNingy]

I am posting this Blanked out but after a few days i'll edit hte message and remove the white color so that it is readable. In order to read it in the meantime, hit control-a or select the text. Fear the smileys....

Man that passage just smacked me around...Those questions were definitely tricky, and I'll have to step up my game next time, but thanks for making the passage!

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Man that passage just smacked me around...Those questions were definitely tricky, and I'll have to step up my game next time, but thanks for making the passage!

You are welcome sir....now, your turn to make a passage

edit: i am kidding JNingy, dont feel pressured lol

 

[Dark Ace]

I think I might have done better on your previous passage. I can't remember right now. Feel free to keep making more VR. Thanks for the work you put in. 👍

 

[Captain Sisko]

yeah I've been busy this weekend too, I'll try and think of a passage soon though. good news is i finished my house and can now get back to studying in earnest!

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Ochem today then some more review questions tonight. Starting the kaplan problems...

 

[Entadus]

Yeah Nutty your passage was... 😏 Difficult.....

Hitting the bio passages and verbal passages today. PR Hyperlearning

I'm thinking my chem passage will be something awful... possibly Reaction rates and Thermodynamic vs Kinetic control...

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Yeah Nutty your passage was... 😏 Difficult.....

Hitting the bio passages and verbal passages today. PR Hyperlearning

I'm thinking my chem passage will be something awful... possibly Reaction rates and Thermodynamic vs Kinetic control...

Oh God, maybe I have started a bad trend

 

[Jr MD]

Hey i got really down on myself just now...ugh...how did you all fair on TBR bio passages of the expression of genetic info chapter ? I just got....destroyed...🙁🙁🙁🙁

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch Q using SDN Mobile

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Havent done it yet. I'm skipping around, currently working on the GI tract and kidney chapter. I'll give it a shot tomorrow though. I've heard those are bad chapters anyways so dont feel down. Take a look at how others fare in the Berkeley thread eh?

 

[Jr MD]

Havent done it yet. I'm skipping around, currently working on the GI tract and kidney chapter. I'll give it a shot tomorrow though. I've heard those are bad chapters anyways so dont feel down. Take a look at how others fare in the Berkeley thread eh?

Thanks man...ill go check it out

 

[maybemed2013]

Yesterday I did not get to my passages or reading as plan. And since I am taking the test in June. I am thinking about forgetting the passages and reading a book, instead until March comes.

Today's Goals
Luminosity
Read PR 7.3
Read Sophie's World
Review Orgo rxn of the day.

 

[Captain Sisko]

anyone else get the idea that it might be worth it to mess with my computer's resolution for some practice exams? seems like it can really f#&* with people on the real thing, especially for verbal.

 

[dellian101]

Has anyone started doing Kaplan's/other comapnies practice section tests?

 

[PlasmodiumVivax]

Just finished my physics self-assessment test, definitely the hardest out of all the self-assessments (Haven't started Verbal)

Scores are listed:

Biology 80%
G-chem 86%
Ochem 85%
Physics 74%

Ironically my strongest points are Fluids/solids, Electricity/Magnetism and circuits, and my weakest were translational motion and energy. I've decided to get into EK 1001 and brush up on these topics.

Now I'm debating whether to continue Kaplans section tests or to start their full-lengths, decisions decisions...

 

[maybemed2013]

I dont know why I thought I could restudy for the mcat at this time. I need a break and I will begin restudy during March 3, if it is needed.

 

[Albein]

And the mystery of how BR verbal gets the best of me continues. Sorry guys, I took a break this weekend which I now regret. I'll get on making a passage soon.

 

[Albein]

Yea I feel much more prepared in terms of how to study and what to study. I know I missed 2 questions in PS and 3 questions in BS b/c of lack of content knowledge last time so I am really drilling in everything about everything this time around.

Don't worry too much about your practice scores. The main thing is reviewing the mistakes. Last time, I was more engaged with what my TBR end of chapter scores were than in actually reviewing those questions on a consistent basis and that is one of the reasons I didn't do as well as I wanted to.

I mean I'm sure your experience went a lot better than mine including the score, but I'm starting to feel that regardless of what I do, the outcome will be the same I guess the only thing keeping me going and confident is that my content review should be done 1.5 months before exam date and I can do practice tests because last time around I only finished content review and started practice tests 3 weeks before the exam which was ridiculous.

Does anyone have any verbal tips or strategies? I was able to convince myself that every passage is interesting and it worked for a while, but BR verbal has been tearing me a new one every time which is a bad sign since the general consensus is that it is the easiest of all of the verbal sources:

 

[dellian101]

these are awesome scores!! was this Kaplan material/? I've definitly been finding it very challenging! what did you use to study?

Just finished my physics self-assessment test, definitely the hardest out of all the self-assessments (Haven't started Verbal)

Scores are listed:

Biology 80%
G-chem 86%
Ochem 85%
Physics 74%

Ironically my strongest points are Fluids/solids, Electricity/Magnetism and circuits, and my weakest were translational motion and energy. I've decided to get into EK 1001 and brush up on these topics.

Now I'm debating whether to continue Kaplans section tests or to start their full-lengths, decisions decisions...

 

[PlasmodiumVivax]

these are awesome scores!! was this Kaplan material/? I've definitly been finding it very challenging! what did you use to study?

Thank you 🙂, I still feel like I'm underachieving since I saw higher percentages on SDN.

I've been using TBR for content in Ochem, Gchem and Physics and EK/TPR for Biology. I've been using passages/discretes from Kaplan, TPR, TBR for sciences.

Any other details ask away and I'll try to help 😀

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Plan for the day: Biology day, including chap 10 of tbr, some physical sciences problems, then verbal tonight.

Looks like everyone is making good progress and results. 🙂

 

[Donchissy]

Hello Fellow March Takers,
I dont know how this will work, but Just throwing this out there...If anyone who is testing in California would be dropping out of the March 23rd date for any reason, please contact me before you drop, I would be interested to fill that spot...thanks and good luck yall!
[email protected]

 

[Albein]

Plan for the day: Biology day, including chap 10 of tbr, some physical sciences problems, then verbal tonight.

Looks like everyone is making good progress and results. 🙂

are you using Sn2's schedule? because i just realized today that chapter 10 of bio isn't on there. i feel like it just skips over it.

 

[gettheleadout]

are you using Sn2's schedule? because i just realized today that chapter 10 of bio isn't on there. i feel like it just skips over it.

It goes by EK Bio chapters and there are only 9.

 

[Albein]

It goes by EK Bio chapters and there are only 9.

that's right! I completely forgot about that. thanks!

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Nope, the only thing I'm doing similar to the SN2ED schedule is do 1/3's have a review day and save the final 1/3 for when i start full length tests.

Chapter 10 is TBR chapter 10, Expression of Genetic Information.

 

[Entadus]

Step right up, folks! Come one, come all! Fun with chemical kinetics, give it a try! 🙂

GOOD LUCK

Passage 2

Researchers are working to elucidate the mechanism of the common reaction:

A + 2C + E ------> F + G ( ΔH = -227 kJ/mol at Standard Temperature and Pressure)

A 3-step mechanism for the reaction has recently been proposed. According to this hypothesis, the reaction involves key intermediates B and D, and includes a rapid initiation step whereby 2 molecules of reactant A reversibly form 1 molecule of activated intermediate B. The proposed mechanism is shown below in Figure 1.

Step 1: 2A <=(forward k1 , backwards k-1)=> B - **fast, reversible**
Step 2: B + 2 C -----------k2---------------------> A + D
Step 3: D + E ------------k3----------------------> F + G

^Figure 1^

A researcher on the team decides to test this mechanism by the method of initial rates. The concentrations of reactants A, C, and E are varied and the rate of formation of product G is determined during the course of the first second of the reaction. The experimental data are provided below (figure 2).

Exp. . . .[A]. . . . . . . [C]. . . . . . . . [E]. . . . . . .initial rate (M/s)
1...........0.1M...........0.1M..........0M................x
2..........0.1M............0.1M........0.05M........1.0*10^-4
3..........0.1M...........0.1M.........0.1M..........1.0*10^-4
4..........0.1M...........0.05M.......0.2M..........2.5*10^-5
5..........0.2M...........0.05M.......0.05M.......5.0*10^-5

^Figure 2^

A second researcher on the team draws an Energy diagram as shown in Figure 3 for an unrelated pair of similar reactions involving Reactant "R", abbreviated as follows:

R -----> P
R -----> P*

Both reactions are known to be exothermic and exergonic at STP.

Figure 3 - see attached image


Questions
1. According to the balanced overall reaction in figure 1, what can be inferred about the entropy of reaction and the Gibbs free energy of reaction at temperature T?
A. &#916;S < 0 , &#916;G < 0
B. &#916;S < 0 , &#916;G cannot be determined
C. &#916;S > 0 , &#916;G < 0
D. &#916;S > 0 , &#916;G > 0

2. The research team has evidence that step #2 in the proposed mechanism shown in Figure 1 is the slow step. What is the correct and experimentally useful rate law suggested by this mechanism?
A. Rate = k2/k-1 * [A]^2 * [C]^2
B. Rate = k2 * [C]^2
C. Rate = k1k2/k-1 * [A]^2 * [C]^2
D. Rate = k1k2k3 * [A]^2 * [C]^2 * [E]

3. What is the experimental rate law the team derived from the data in figure 2?
A. Rate = k * [A][C]
B. Rate = k * [A] * [C]^2
C. Rate = k * [A]^2 * [C]^2
D. Rate = k * [A] * [C] * [E]

4. In the data in figure 2, experiment 1, what is most likely the measured rate of formation of G (what is the value of "x" )?
A. 0 M/s
B. 1.0*10^-4 M/s
C. 2.5*10^-5 M/s
D. Cannot be determined

5. What is the correct value of k in the experimental rate law from Figure 2?
A. 10^-2 M/s
B. 10^-2 M^-2
C. 10^-1 M/s
D. 10^-1 M^-2

6. In Figure 3, what could be a method for favoring the formation of P* over P?
A. The use of a catalyst to lower the activation energy
B. Changing the energy of the reactants
C. Increasing the temperature of the reaction
D. Decreasing the temperature of the reaction

7. What is true about the reactions indicated in Figure 3?
A. P* is thermodynamically favored and &#916;(&#916;G) is negative.
B. P is thermodynamically favored and &#916;(&#916;G) is positive.
C. P is thermodynamically favored and the sign of &#916;(&#916;G) has not been defined.
D. P* is thermodynamically favored and &#916;(&#916;G) is positive.

 

[Entadus]

For anyone who missed it, Passage 1 can be found here:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=13561065&postcount=673

Answers to Passage 1: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=13564065&postcount=694

 

[NuttyEngDude]

thanks for the passage entadus, I will take a look tomorrow, i have a feeling by the time i finish reading this bio chapter i'll fall asleep. its a good 60 pages!

 

[JNingy]

Step right up, folks! Come one, come all! Fun with chemical kinetics, give it a try! 🙂

GOOD LUCK

Passage 2

Researchers are working to elucidate the mechanism of the common reaction:

A + 2C + E ------> F + G ( &#916;H = -227 kJ/mol at Standard Temperature and Pressure)

A 3-step mechanism for the reaction has recently been proposed. According to this hypothesis, the reaction involves key intermediates B and D, and includes a rapid initiation step whereby 2 molecules of reactant A reversibly form 1 molecule of activated intermediate B. The proposed mechanism is shown below in Figure 1.

Step 1: 2A <=(forward k1 , backwards k-1)=> B - **fast, reversible**
Step 2: B + 2 C -----------k2---------------------> A + D
Step 3: D + E ------------k3----------------------> F + G

^Figure 1^

A researcher on the team decides to test this mechanism by the method of initial rates. The concentrations of reactants A, C, and E are varied and the rate of formation of product G is determined during the course of the first second of the reaction. The experimental data are provided below (figure 2).

Exp. . . .[A]. . . . . . . [C]. . . . . . . . [E]. . . . . . .initial rate (M/s)
1...........0.1M...........0.1M..........0M................x
2..........0.1M............0.1M........0.05M........1.0*10^-4
3..........01.M...........0.1M.........0.1M..........1.0*10^-4
4..........0.1M...........0.05M.......0.2M..........2.5*10^-5
5..........0.2M...........0.05M.......0.05M.......5.0*10^-5

^Figure 2^

A second researcher on the team draws an Energy diagram as shown in Figure 3 for an unrelated pair of similar reactions involving Reactant "R", abbreviated as follows:

R -----> P
R -----> P*

Both reactions are known to be exothermic and exergonic at STP.

Figure 3 - see attached image
View attachment 22480

Questions
1. According to the balanced overall reaction in figure 1, what can be inferred about the entropy of reaction and the Gibbs free energy of reaction at temperature T?
A. &#916;S < 0 , &#916;G < 0
B. &#916;S < 0 , &#916;G cannot be determined
C. &#916;S > 0 , &#916;G < 0
D. &#916;S > 0 , &#916;G > 0

2. The research team has evidence that step #2 in the proposed mechanism shown in Figure 1 is the slow step. What is the correct and experimentally useful rate law suggested by this mechanism?
A. Rate = k2/k-1 * [A]^2 * [C]^2
B. Rate = k2 * [C]^2
C. Rate = k1k2/k-1 * [A]^2 * [C]^2
D. Rate = k1k2k3 * [A]^2 * [C]^2 * [E]

3. What is the experimental rate law the team derived from the data in figure 2?
A. Rate = k * [A][C]
B. Rate = k * [A] * [C]^2
C. Rate = k * [A]^2 * [C]^2
D. Rate = k * [A] * [C] * [E]

4. In the data in figure 2, experiment 1, what is most likely the measured rate of formation of G (what is the value of "x" )?
A. 0 M/s
B. 1.0*10^-4 M/s
C. 2.5*10^-5 M/s
D. Cannot be determined

5. What is the correct value of k in the experimental rate law from Figure 2?
A. 10^-2 M/s
B. 10^-2 M^-2
C. 10^-1 M/s
D. 10^-1 M^-2

6. In Figure 3, what could be a method for favoring the formation of P* over P?
A. The use of a catalyst to lower the activation energy
B. Changing the energy of the reactants
C. Increasing the temperature of the reaction
D. Decreasing the temperature of the reaction

7. What is true about the reactions indicated in Figure 3?
A. P* is thermodynamically favored and &#916;(&#916;G) is negative.
B. P is thermodynamically favored and &#916;(&#916;G) is positive.
C. P is thermodynamically favored and the sign of &#916;(&#916;G) has not been defined.
D. P* is thermodynamically favored and &#916;(&#916;G) is positive.

Thanks for making the passage! answers in white:
a c b b c c c

 

[Albein]

Just learned I can't study at night. I just tried reviewing my nitrogen orgo chapter and it just didnt go well at all. Gotta stick to studying first half of the day.

 

[gettheleadout]

Pretty behind and feeling pretty burnt out. 🙁

Content review is going well but I haven't been able to do passages in a couple days, don't even mention verbal passages.

Also making some pretty big academic decisions, just what I need, more stress...

Hope everyone else is doing well.

 

[Albein]

Pretty behind and feeling pretty burnt out. 🙁

Content review is going well but I haven't been able to do passages in a couple days, don't even mention verbal passages.

Also making some pretty big academic decisions, just what I need, more stress...

Hope everyone else is doing well.

Wow, this sounds just like my situation. Push through it, entering home stretch soon.

 

[gettheleadout]

Wow, this sounds just like my situation. Push through it, entering home stretch soon.

Now that's just scary...

 

[Albein]

Now that's just scary...

You're telling me? I'm still reviewing content from 2 weeks ago. Outlining is taking too darn long. Hopefully lack of break days helps me catch up quick. We'll get through it.

 

[Jr MD]

Pretty behind and feeling pretty burnt out. 🙁

Content review is going well but I haven't been able to do passages in a couple days, don't even mention verbal passages.

Also making some pretty big academic decisions, just what I need, more stress...

Hope everyone else is doing well.

Behind in my school work but on schedule in my MCAT prep...:/ ...ugh...i can't wait till this is over!

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch Q using SDN Mobile

 

[sp808]

Anyone planning on purchasing the TBR CBT full lengths? I sent my order in at the beginning of January and I haven't heard back/my card has not been charged yet. :/

I'm wrapping up my content review and was planning on doing the TBR tests in February and the AAMCs in March. Was hoping I'd have access to the tests by now..

 

[osprey099]

Pretty behind and feeling pretty burnt out. 🙁

Content review is going well but I haven't been able to do passages in a couple days, don't even mention verbal passages.

Also making some pretty big academic decisions, just what I need, more stress...

Hope everyone else is doing well.

I feel you man.

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Hang in there guys, my plan is to work through my background content (i'll take a day if i'm not making efficient progress) and when I finish all the content, take a solid day off.

Today, TBR bio chap 9&10, entadus's passage, verbal, more PS problems.

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Hey i got really down on myself just now...ugh...how did you all fair on TBR bio passages of the expression of genetic info chapter ? I just got....destroyed...🙁🙁🙁🙁

Just got 22 out of 33 on my first 1/3. On Passage 7 I missed almost every single one lol. Oh well