Blog

Now, open Excel. Perform a basic calculation such as 2+2 or 4-1. If you were able to do this successfully, answer TRUE below.

I was able to open Excel and perform a basic calculation such as 2 x 2 or 4 -1.

Who creates a database catalog?

What caused the problem in the ATM example discussed in class?

Reading 3 Whether to attract a mate, to look good for others, or to boost self-confidence, people have tried for thousands of years to enhance their looks. Cosmetics made from animal, plant, and mineral products were first used in ancient Egypt, as early as 4000 BC. The Egyptian queen Cleopatra wore a deep red lipstick made of finely crushed beetles and ant eggs in a base of beeswax. Since many of the products used in makeup had a foul odor, women often doused themselves with heavy perfume in order to mask the stench. The most recognized characteristic of Egyptian makeup is probably kohl, a dark substance Egyptians used to outline their eyes. People at all levels of Egyptian society—men, women, and children—used kohl, which included lead, copper, burned almonds, and soot. These materials were ground to a powder and then mixed with the oil from animal fat so that the substance would adhere to the skin around the eyes. In more modern times, attitudes toward appearance and cosmetics underwent a series of changes. In the Middle Ages (1066–1485), Church leaders said that wearing makeup was sinful, though many women disagreed. One example is 13th century Italian women, who wore red lipstick to indicate they were upper class. Later, from about 1500 to 1900, the lower classes in Europe and elsewhere had to work outside in the fields. Daily exposure to the sun gave them a suntan, something the privileged upper classes lacked. So a pale skin became associated with higher status. As a result, both men and women—Queen Elizabeth I is a famous example—tried to lighten their skin. They made themselves look paler by bleeding themselves or by using paints or powders that contained white lead or arsenic, even though it was then widely known that lead and arsenic could be poisonous. This whitening proved fatal to many women—and even to many of their husbands. During the strictly moral Victorian Age (1837–1901), Queen Victoria of England publicly declared makeup to be improper and vulgar—acceptable only for actors. Women then achieved a pale complexion by using a parasol to keep the sun off their faces. And sometimes they applied just a bit of rouge or rubbed their cheeks to give them a healthy-looking pink. In the 1920s, French fashion designer Coco Chanel started a trend when she got sunburned while vacationing on the French Riviera. Her fans liked Coco’s look and tried to imitate it. So tanned skin came to be viewed as a sign of wealth and status, rather than of poverty. Later in the 20th century, women saw makeup used extensively in the movies, in ads, and on television. They wanted to wear makeup too, and pricing made it affordable for all social classes. In the 1970s, several companies began creating makeup specifically to enhance the rich tones of dark skin. Today, women—and also men—in the United States spend about 20 billion dollars a year on tanning, makeup, hair color, nail polish, and other products to improve their appearance.   What is the relationship of the second sentence below to the first? “Cosmetics made from animal, plant, and mineral products were first used in ancient Egypt, as early as 4000 BC. The Egyptian queen Cleopatra wore a deep red lipstick made of finely crushed beetles and ant eggs in a base of beeswax.” (Paragraph 1) The second sentence

Reading 4 Think you know how to study? Research suggests that much of the common wisdom about good study habits is wrong. For instance, most study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to do their work. Yet in one classic experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms—one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view of a courtyard—did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics. Another research finding that goes against accepted wisdom is that it is better to vary the type of material studied in a single sitting than to concentrate on just one skill at a time. For example, in one recent study, researchers taught a group of fourth-graders four equations, each to calculate a different dimension of a prism. Half of the children learned by studying repeated examples of one equation. Then they moved on to the next type of calculation, studying repeated examples of that. The other half studied mixed problem sets, which included examples of all four types of calculations grouped together. A day later, the researchers gave all of the students a test on the material, presenting new problems of the same type. The children who had studied mixed sets outscored the others, 77 percent to 38 percent. Researchers have found the same in experiments involving adults and younger children. These findings undermine the common belief that intensive immersion is the best way to really master a particular skill. Scientists do not deny that honest-to-goodness cramming can lead to a better grade on a given exam. But they liken hurriedly jam-packing a brain to speed-packing a cheap suitcase. As most students quickly learn—it holds its new load for a while; then most everything falls out. On the other hand, when the mental suitcase is packed carefully and gradually, it holds its content for far, far, longer. As dozens of studies have shown, an hour of study one night, an hour on the weekend, another session a week from now: such so-called spacing improves later recall, without requiring students to put in more overall study effort. No one knows for sure why. It may be that the brain has to relearn some of what it has absorbed before adding new stuff—and that that process aids recall. In other words, forgetting is the friend of learning. That’s one reason scientists see practice tests and quizzes as powerful tools of learning, rather than merely assessment. In one experiment, researchers had college students study science passages from a reading comprehension test, in short study periods. When students studied the same material twice, in back-to-back sessions, they did very well on a test given immediately afterward, then began to forget the material. But if they studied the passage just once and did a practice test in the second session, they did very well on one test two days later, and another given a week later. Of course, one reason the thought of testing tightens people’s stomachs is that tests are so often hard. Paradoxically, it is just this difficulty that makes them such effective study tools. None of these techniques—alternating study environments, mixing content, spacing study sessions, self-testing, or all of the above—is guaranteed to turn a grade-A slacker into a grade-A student. But at the very least, the techniques give parents and students a study plan based on evidence, not schoolyard folk wisdom. In a study involving fourth-graders,

Reading 4 Think you know how to study? Research suggests that much of the common wisdom about good study habits is wrong. For instance, most study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to do their work. Yet in one classic experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms—one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view of a courtyard—did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics. Another research finding that goes against accepted wisdom is that it is better to vary the type of material studied in a single sitting than to concentrate on just one skill at a time. For example, in one recent study, researchers taught a group of fourth-graders four equations, each to calculate a different dimension of a prism. Half of the children learned by studying repeated examples of one equation. Then they moved on to the next type of calculation, studying repeated examples of that. The other half studied mixed problem sets, which included examples of all four types of calculations grouped together. A day later, the researchers gave all of the students a test on the material, presenting new problems of the same type. The children who had studied mixed sets outscored the others, 77 percent to 38 percent. Researchers have found the same in experiments involving adults and younger children. These findings undermine the common belief that intensive immersion is the best way to really master a particular skill. Scientists do not deny that honest-to-goodness cramming can lead to a better grade on a given exam. But they liken hurriedly jam-packing a brain to speed-packing a cheap suitcase. As most students quickly learn—it holds its new load for a while; then most everything falls out. On the other hand, when the mental suitcase is packed carefully and gradually, it holds its content for far, far, longer. As dozens of studies have shown, an hour of study one night, an hour on the weekend, another session a week from now: such so-called spacing improves later recall, without requiring students to put in more overall study effort. No one knows for sure why. It may be that the brain has to relearn some of what it has absorbed before adding new stuff—and that that process aids recall. In other words, forgetting is the friend of learning. That’s one reason scientists see practice tests and quizzes as powerful tools of learning, rather than merely assessment. In one experiment, researchers had college students study science passages from a reading comprehension test, in short study periods. When students studied the same material twice, in back-to-back sessions, they did very well on a test given immediately afterward, then began to forget the material. But if they studied the passage just once and did a practice test in the second session, they did very well on one test two days later, and another given a week later. Of course, one reason the thought of testing tightens people’s stomachs is that tests are so often hard. Paradoxically, it is just this difficulty that makes them such effective study tools. None of these techniques—alternating study environments, mixing content, spacing study sessions, self-testing, or all of the above—is guaranteed to turn a grade-A slacker into a grade-A student. But at the very least, the techniques give parents and students a study plan based on evidence, not schoolyard folk wisdom. The main idea of paragraph 3 is that

Reading 4 Think you know how to study? Research suggests that much of the common wisdom about good study habits is wrong. For instance, most study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to do their work. Yet in one classic experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms—one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view of a courtyard—did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics. Another research finding that goes against accepted wisdom is that it is better to vary the type of material studied in a single sitting than to concentrate on just one skill at a time. For example, in one recent study, researchers taught a group of fourth-graders four equations, each to calculate a different dimension of a prism. Half of the children learned by studying repeated examples of one equation. Then they moved on to the next type of calculation, studying repeated examples of that. The other half studied mixed problem sets, which included examples of all four types of calculations grouped together. A day later, the researchers gave all of the students a test on the material, presenting new problems of the same type. The children who had studied mixed sets outscored the others, 77 percent to 38 percent. Researchers have found the same in experiments involving adults and younger children. These findings undermine the common belief that intensive immersion is the best way to really master a particular skill. Scientists do not deny that honest-to-goodness cramming can lead to a better grade on a given exam. But they liken hurriedly jam-packing a brain to speed-packing a cheap suitcase. As most students quickly learn—it holds its new load for a while; then most everything falls out. On the other hand, when the mental suitcase is packed carefully and gradually, it holds its content for far, far, longer. As dozens of studies have shown, an hour of study one night, an hour on the weekend, another session a week from now: such so-called spacing improves later recall, without requiring students to put in more overall study effort. No one knows for sure why. It may be that the brain has to relearn some of what it has absorbed before adding new stuff—and that that process aids recall. In other words, forgetting is the friend of learning. That’s one reason scientists see practice tests and quizzes as powerful tools of learning, rather than merely assessment. In one experiment, researchers had college students study science passages from a reading comprehension test, in short study periods. When students studied the same material twice, in back-to-back sessions, they did very well on a test given immediately afterward, then began to forget the material. But if they studied the passage just once and did a practice test in the second session, they did very well on one test two days later, and another given a week later. Of course, one reason the thought of testing tightens people’s stomachs is that tests are so often hard. Paradoxically, it is just this difficulty that makes them such effective study tools. None of these techniques—alternating study environments, mixing content, spacing study sessions, self-testing, or all of the above—is guaranteed to turn a grade-A slacker into a grade-A student. But at the very least, the techniques give parents and students a study plan based on evidence, not schoolyard folk wisdom. The author’s main purpose is to 

Reading 3 Whether to attract a mate, to look good for others, or to boost self-confidence, people have tried for thousands of years to enhance their looks. Cosmetics made from animal, plant, and mineral products were first used in ancient Egypt, as early as 4000 BC. The Egyptian queen Cleopatra wore a deep red lipstick made of finely crushed beetles and ant eggs in a base of beeswax. Since many of the products used in makeup had a foul odor, women often doused themselves with heavy perfume in order to mask the stench. The most recognized characteristic of Egyptian makeup is probably kohl, a dark substance Egyptians used to outline their eyes. People at all levels of Egyptian society—men, women, and children—used kohl, which included lead, copper, burned almonds, and soot. These materials were ground to a powder and then mixed with the oil from animal fat so that the substance would adhere to the skin around the eyes. In more modern times, attitudes toward appearance and cosmetics underwent a series of changes. In the Middle Ages (1066–1485), Church leaders said that wearing makeup was sinful, though many women disagreed. One example is 13th century Italian women, who wore red lipstick to indicate they were upper class. Later, from about 1500 to 1900, the lower classes in Europe and elsewhere had to work outside in the fields. Daily exposure to the sun gave them a suntan, something the privileged upper classes lacked. So a pale skin became associated with higher status. As a result, both men and women—Queen Elizabeth I is a famous example—tried to lighten their skin. They made themselves look paler by bleeding themselves or by using paints or powders that contained white lead or arsenic, even though it was then widely known that lead and arsenic could be poisonous. This whitening proved fatal to many women—and even to many of their husbands. During the strictly moral Victorian Age (1837–1901), Queen Victoria of England publicly declared makeup to be improper and vulgar—acceptable only for actors. Women then achieved a pale complexion by using a parasol to keep the sun off their faces. And sometimes they applied just a bit of rouge or rubbed their cheeks to give them a healthy-looking pink. In the 1920s, French fashion designer Coco Chanel started a trend when she got sunburned while vacationing on the French Riviera. Her fans liked Coco’s look and tried to imitate it. So tanned skin came to be viewed as a sign of wealth and status, rather than of poverty. Later in the 20th century, women saw makeup used extensively in the movies, in ads, and on television. They wanted to wear makeup too, and pricing made it affordable for all social classes. In the 1970s, several companies began creating makeup specifically to enhance the rich tones of dark skin. Today, women—and also men—in the United States spend about 20 billion dollars a year on tanning, makeup, hair color, nail polish, and other products to improve their appearance. We can conclude from the passage that

Reading 1 Why do we fear some things but not others? After the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many people feared flying more than driving, even though Americans, according to the National Safety Council, were 40 percent more likely to die, mile for mile, in a car crash than on a plane trip. From 2002 to 2004, there were only 34 deaths among nearly 2 billion aircraft passengers, while in the same period, 128,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents. So why aren’t we more afraid of driving than of flying? Psychologists have determined that there are four factors that influence our personal fears. One reason for our fears comes from our ancestral history. Primitive humans were afraid of being trapped in small spaces, most likely because they would not be able to escape from predators, such as a hungry tiger that followed them into their cave. And they were afraid of heights because—as they learned 100,000 years ago—it was easy to fall from them. These primitive fears of confinement and heights are still with us, and they can be seen in our reactions to modern-day flying on airplanes. On a jumbo jet, hundreds of us are jammed into tiny spaces. What’s more, we’re forced to fasten our seat belts and keep them fastened until the aircraft reaches its cruising altitude . . . which can be 36,000 feet. No wonder we’re scared. Secondly, experts say we fear what we cannot control. Unless we are trained pilots, we do not control flying. When we fly, then, we are helpless passengers: unable to move or change direction, belted into our too-small seats in a huge metal prison hurtling through the skies more than six miles above the ground. However, when we drive, we’re in charge; we can choose how fast to go, what route to take, and whether or not to stop along the way. Therefore, our fear of flying commonly trumps any reservations we have about driving. Another influence on fear involves the possibility of immediate threat. For instance, fears related to flying are mainly condensed into the moments of takeoff and landing, which involve rapid, often bumpy ascents and descents. Once the plane is in the air and flying smoothly, our concerns usually subside. The dangers of driving, however, are scattered over a much longer period—from the beginning of the trip to the end—and therefore seem less threatening. Finally, we fear what is most readily available in our memory. Powerful, still-present memories of the 9/11 terrorist attacks generate a rationale for anxiety over air travel. In addition, whenever a large airplane crashes, vivid stories, including all the gory details and accompanied by gruesome photos, dominate national and local news. Unless we’re picking someone up at the airport, we never get to hear about the flights that arrive safely. In contrast, automobile accidents, unless they involve celebrities, rarely show up on the evening news, and countless safe car trips reduce or even eliminate fears about driving. Considering these fear factors helps us understand our own perceptions of risk. According to psychologists, our mindsets and our memories cause us to judge some events to be greater threats than they really are. You can infer from the passage that