we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed
we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed
No it is not dishonest. It is just you who came with a stupid comment. Maybe next you should try to think before you attack head first.
I gave the assumptions. The graph is based on those assumptions. If you believe those assumptions are wrong, then I am willing to take that debate. But if you just state that I made it up, then you lack an understanding of how the assumptions are related to the graph.
we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed
Actually if you had an understanding of the graph and what I was trying to tell, you would have understood that I created the chart.
Why would I need to get a chart from somewhere when it is directly based on some assumptions? Use your brain. You are not calling anyone out, you are just making a fool out of yourself.
Now how many people can honestly say that there was never a school project assignment given where somebody didn't walk in with a project that looked like a professional did them?
No, I didn't understand that at first, not until I asked.
Can you link to those specific assumptions? Your graph may well be consistent with them, but I would like to see if I can verify those assumptions. I do question the X axis and where the parabola peaks, and I'd like to know the values placed on the Y axis; to what do they refer.Why would I need to get a chart from somewhere when it is directly based on some assumptions? Use your brain. You are not calling anyone out, you are just making a fool out of yourself.
The question you didn't answer was, "What is your data set?" On what research did you base that graph? There seems to be a logical basis for it, one would expect returns on increasing study hours would plot a parabola, but I suspect it might look somewhat different to yours.
"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión
"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn
Well at least you understood when you asked.
These are my assumptions. The numbers are derived, but only because it is impossible to find real numbers, as there are no studies on how much students learn with certain amount of hours. The reason I created it was to give a better representation of why it is good to reduce from 50 to 40 hours per week, but bad to reduce from 30 hours to 20 hours.Can you link to those specific assumptions? Your graph may well be consistent with them, but I would like to see if I can verify those assumptions. I do question the X axis and where the parabola peaks, and I'd like to know the values placed on the Y axis; to what do they refer.
The question you didn't answer was, "What is your data set?" On what research did you base that graph? There seems to be a logical basis for it, one would expect returns on increasing study hours would plot a parabola, but I suspect it might look somewhat different to yours.
You can propose changes to it if you want, and if I don't find it too unreasonable I will draw it, but I believe it is quite right. While students may get more tired, they can also get tired by doing non school related stuff such as staying up too late playing games and if classes are spread too far apart then it is easy to forget. Also, evidence show that students who work a lot of hours do better than students who don't, but the difference is not that large.
Assumptions are below.
Indeed. Had you been just trolling you would not have fessed up to having created the graph yourself. I accept that entirely.
Yes, I didn't understand that list of values; the declining percentages set against number of hours. What made you ascribe those values and how do they apply to the graph? What are those values on the Y axis, btw?These are my assumptions. The numbers are derived, but only because it is impossible to find real numbers, as there are no studies on how much students learn with certain amount of hours. The reason I created it was to give a better representation of why it is good to reduce from 50 to 40 hours per week, but bad to reduce from 30 hours to 20 hours.
You can propose changes to it if you want, and if I don't find it too unreasonable I will draw it, but I believe it is quite right. While students may get more tired, they can also get tired by doing non school related stuff such as staying up too late playing games and if classes are spread too far apart then it is easy to forget. Also, evidence show that students who work a lot of hours do better than students who don't, but the difference is not that large.
Assumptions are below.
I would challenge, as I did, the position of the peak of the parabola at 50+ hours. I might accept that at graduate, or even under-graduate level, not at age 15.
Still, a useful and interesting exercise. I'm going to do some study and see if I can find research data to back up both your and my theories.
"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión
"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn