ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2062|回复: 8
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[原始] 9.2一战700放狗回馈不分手

[精华] [复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2018-9-3 00:29:33 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
先报一下分数吧8月复习一个月(严格来说有效学习时间可能只有20天每天8小时orz)
一战总分700:Q50 V34

Q: 说实话比想象中简单很多(构筑甚至觉得比很多OG的题目还要简单,中间做到一些NC题目一度觉得掉库了慌得不行),所以大家不用很担心,心态稳住加机经上50妥妥的~印象中最少碰到了有5.6道机经题目,以下补充一些其他的。

1. 构筑的第二题印象及其深刻,一道超级简单的题大概做了有3分钟的样子。。(先做的Q,进入状态真的很重要!!)
PS:说1850被x除余数是50,问X可能的值,选项大概是50,350,450,550

2. DS:问5x^2y/xy^2的值是多少
条件1:y=一个值
条件2:x^2y^2=108
构筑选的E 因为X正负不知道

3. PS:说一个公司卖票吧,10%的售价是$100-400, 20%卖400-600,40%卖600-800,20%卖800-1000,10%卖1200-1500,问所有价格小于1200的票中,平均售价的范围?
构筑思路是设一共100张票,然后用每个区间的端点值乘以频次加起来除以90再相减(这道是最后一题了其实没什么时间算最后随便选了)

4. PS:问以下数字能否被3整除
a. n^2-(n-3)^2
b. n^3-n
c. 3n-n
选a和b(任意3个连续自然数都能被3整除)

5. DS:说一共有560人参加什么seminar,要morning和night section,问参加morning和night,或both的人数是多少(这里构筑有点小疑问,问句大概问的是how many people attend the morning,night section,or both,不知道是想问3个分别有多少人还是只要能知道前2个就行;以及构筑忘记了条件有没有说每个人都参加了,印象中题干应该有说)
条件1:去morning section的有140人
条件2:参加了both的有80人

6. PS:有个出租车司机,收费方法是每miles收1.8加每分钟收0.4(数字记不清了),问一个人坐了d miles 的车,花了9块钱,求他坐车坐了多少小时?(注意是小时不是分钟),答案是用d表示出来的

7. 两个人P和H(名字不记得)去吃饭,每个人都点了一个1.6块钱的pizza,P给的tips是20%pizza,H给的tips是20%pizza加上5%tax pizza,问H比P多给多少小费(原谅构筑把这么NC的机经也写上了)

8. X is decreased by 3/8 of 1 percent, 问X减少的值用小数表示出来是多少,选项给的是范围,构筑选0.003-0.004

9. 还有一道解一元二次方程的题,答案大概是-13/5和5(还是3)

原谅构筑的JJ都有点简单。。不过就是想最大限度的回馈大家啦~

V:构筑发现前面的题目比较简单,大家可以尽量做快一点给后面留出时间
阅读:
1. 鸟类迁徙和笼子实验那篇~JJ很全啦

2. 说的是biomagnifying chemical什么什么的,不长就两段。第一段说某种物质(有害的toxin)在生物体内的分布规律是越处在食物链(food chain)顶端的动物越是high concentrate,它可以在水中溶解什么的。然后举了北极熊的例子,说北极熊主要吃algeo什么的。后面又说在北极熊的grill里面发现了这种物质,说明它是可以排出的,得出结论说toxin是safe的。第二段貌似反驳了这种观点,说发现在鸟类和水生物体内并没有这种物质(后来说了物质的名字好像是low-kow),可能是因为它们长期与空气和水接触然后排出了这种物质。但是北极熊没有这种经常接触水或air的机会来排出这个物质(这里有高亮,问这句话作用,构筑选的是为了说明这种物质没有之前想象的那么safe),最后对前面总结了一下,说通过这个实验可以研究更多的chemical怎么怎么样。

3. language那篇,真的超长,4大段,构筑看到的时候心里是崩溃的,当时时间不是很多了,就没仔细看。
第一段大概说了general的观点,说一种语言使用的人越多说明他的nonnative speaker越多;第二段提出了主要讨论的点(mete什么什么 compexity),说一种语言的语法复杂性会影响别人对它的继承,然后婴儿比成年人学得快。然后说语言是越来越简单的,因为成年人无法完全grasp语法规则;后面两段又说有的compexity被保留下来了,因为成年人在教小孩说话的时候要给他们解释imply的意思什么什么的。。。。后面失忆

4. mutual fund 那篇,构筑看到这篇心里又MMP, 这不是平时经常看到的东西吗!平时写论文刷题都是这东西。。(然而时间不等人,又是一目十行没法看)
第一段大概说现在有很多mutual fund 的公司和manager打着高收益、稳定的招牌,收取很高的comission fee,但其实收益没那么高,还不如有的stock。后面又举了index fund 的例子(有细节题);第二段说现在有一些new mutual fund,这些fund的计算分析过程都是由电脑完成的,而电脑程序跟前面有manager的fund用的是一样的程序,所以cost和fee会很低,commission fee也很低。但是又否定说这些new fund也没有很多人买,因为commission fee低, 所以它们的manager没有incentive to market这些fund.

SC和CR就见仁见智啦,感觉不难,SC有挺多可以直接秒选的那种(简单得构筑又以为掉库了),大概有3-4道语义题吧,注意动作的发出者,还有动作和结果(用ing)的区分就好啦~另外Ron大神的语法课(没时间看视频截图就好,配着论坛大神总结的Ron语法课笔记word版下饭~)真的有用,他讲的知识点感觉都是我平时看到会有question mark以及那种很triky的语法点,一般的细小知识点通过刷题都能积累起来,但是Ron就是能总结出那种你平时用着觉得没错但实际上在GMAT考试中是错误的语法点,所以还是很有意义的~

说几句题外话:其实GMAT实战没有大家想象的那么难(构筑个人感觉),难度大概和官方模考以及prep题最接近,如果把OG题分为简中难三档,实战应该是中档偏难左右;GWD有的题稍难,不过可能是构筑也没有做到所谓的高分库吧(700而已~),希望二战做到高分库刷新构筑对实战的认知!!upup~~

最后祝大家都能取得满意的成绩,杀G成功走上人生巅峰~再次感恩CD撒花
收藏收藏1 收藏收藏1
沙发
发表于 2018-9-3 00:34:35 | 只看该作者
感谢分享!               
板凳
发表于 2018-9-3 07:10:24 | 只看该作者
感谢分享!               
地板
发表于 2018-9-3 07:31:51 | 只看该作者
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-453900-1-1.html

是原文吗?http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/182.2

NEWS OF THE WEEK
ECOTOXICOLOGY
Canadian Study Reveals New Class of Potential POPs
Jocelyn Kaiser
Science  13 Jul 2007:
Vol. 317, Issue 5835, pp. 182-183

Dioxin, PCBs, the pesticide DDT—these pollutants are considered among the most dangerous on the planet because they don't break down easily, are highly toxic, and build up in the food chain. Because these chemicals stay put in our body fat, even tiny amounts in food can add up over time and contribute to health problems such as cancer. So worrisome are the risks that more than 140 countries have endorsed a 2001 international treaty that aims to banish a dozen of these substances from the environment.

Now on p. 236, a Canadian team reports that efforts to crack down on persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, may have missed an entire set of them. The problem is that risk assessment experts now finger potential POPs based on whether they build up in fish food webs. That assumption, the authors argue, based on modeling and field data, could be missing chemicals that fish remove from their bodies but that become concentrated in the tissues of mammals and birds, which have a different respiratory physiology.

One-third of the 12,000 or so organic chemicals on the market in Canada fit this new category, say the study's authors at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. This study did not examine whether these chemicals are actually harming wildlife and people, they and others are quick to point out. Still, the work “is really raising a red flag and saying we've got to pay attention to this,” says ecotoxicologist Lawrence Burkhard of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Duluth, Minnesota.

Biomagnification means that the level of a toxin in animals' tissues rises as one moves up the food chain. For instance, as larvae eat algae, fish eat the larvae, and bigger fish eat smaller fish, the toxin present in the algae becomes increasingly concentrated; top predators like swordfish and polar bears end up with the highest doses in their tissues. This can happen with stable, fatsoluble chemicals that aren't easily excreted in urine or feces. Biomagnification was first studied in the late 1960s in aquatic food webs, explains Frank Gobas, professor at Simon Fraser University and leader of the study. To screen chemicals, scientists began using a property known as Kow, which indicates how readily a chemical dissolves in water compared with fat and thus predicts how easily it will move from a fish's blood lipids into water through its gills. Low-Kow, or more watersoluble, chemicals don't build up in the fish food chain and were assumed to be safe.

Environmental chemists realized, however, that this assumption might not hold in food chains involving mammals and birds because their lungs are in contact with air, not water. This means that many chemicals that are relatively soluble in water and therefore don't accumulate in fish might remain in the tissues of land animals if they aren't volatile enough to easily move from the lungs into the air (predicted by a property called Koa). Supporting this idea, some organic chemicals that don't biomagnify in fish appeared to be doing so in other wildlife and humans.

To explore this hypothesis, Gobas and graduate student Barry Kelly and colleagues collected plant and animal tissue samples—from lichens to beluga whales killed in Inuit hunts—in the Arctic, where, because of weather patterns and cold temperatures, organic pollutant levels are high. They tested the samples not only for known POPs but also for several chemicals with a low Kow but high Koa, which suggested they might biomagnify in air-breathing animals.

The measured levels of contaminants for various animals in aquatic and land food webs were similar to those predicted from a bioaccumulation model incorporating Koa and Kow, suggesting the model was correct. Chemicals with low Kow and high Koa stood out as potentially risky. Several of the contaminants studied, such as the insecticide lindane, have been proposed for the POPs treaty already. But many others with similar properties have not been scrutinized, Gobas says. The bottom line: “We're missing a lot of chemicals” that may be building up in the food web, Gobas says.

Canada and countries in Europe that are working through lists of industrial chemicals to identify new potential POPs will now need to revise their approach, says chemist Derek Muir of Environment Canada. He adds, however, that the model has limitations. For one thing, it assumes the chemicals aren't metabolized; many of them probably are, which may convert them to a form that is easily excreted. Procter & Gamble senior scientist Annie Weisbrod agrees: the Koa of chemicals “will matter in some cases,” she says, “but the number of chemicals [that bioaccumulate] will not be a third of those in commerce.”


5#
发表于 2018-9-3 08:18:12 | 只看该作者
想请问一下楼主如何利用手里的阅读寂静?找英文原文还是直接看中文的意思?
6#
发表于 2018-9-3 10:16:05 来自手机 | 只看该作者
Lz Q的第七题的tax rate题目有给嘛
7#
 楼主| 发表于 2018-9-4 15:05:19 来自手机 | 只看该作者
ZOEYMA 发表于 2018-9-3 08:18
想请问一下楼主如何利用手里的阅读寂静?找英文原文还是直接看中文的意思? ...

我一般直接看中文,GMAC一般会把原文改很多感觉意思和重点会有不一样吧?直接看做过的阅读分享感觉更针对一些
8#
 楼主| 发表于 2018-9-4 15:06:24 来自手机 | 只看该作者
goingsherry 发表于 2018-9-3 10:16
Lz Q的第七题的tax rate题目有给嘛

给了 就是tax rate就是5%
9#
 楼主| 发表于 2018-9-4 15:07:30 来自手机 | 只看该作者
bzy! 发表于 2018-9-3 07:31
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-453900-1-1.html

是原文吗?http://science.sciencemag.org/content ...

感觉有些内容一样,但又不完全一样,记不太清了
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-7-21 01:19
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部