<p>@wanting2400</p>
<p>its nto judgemental and discriminating since they're synonyms.</p>
<p>its selective and inclusive since they're antonyms</p>
<p>if 0 is an integer. can't u do 0, 1, 2. only once tho, because it said diffferent positive products less than 1000</p>
<p>0 is not positive</p>
<p>if u do 0,1,2, the answer is 0 and its not positive. its neutral</p>
<p>did it say positive integers...or positive products less than 1000?</p>
<p>good point namkin. nm.</p>
<p>The consecutive integer question specifically said that the result was a positive integer. 3 negative numbers or anything with 0 would not give a positive result. The answer was 9.</p>
<p>hello, i already addressed this question.</p>
<p>i believe it was 9 because</p>
<p>1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
8,9,10
9,10,11</p>
<p>The triplet grid-in was wicked easy for me because I knew that it would equal the greatest integer of the cube root of 999.9. In other words, it would be the number of rational cube roots in the set of [1,1000).
Oh crap!!! Did I forget 0<em>1</em>2, or did it just ask for positive integers. </p>
<p>Firewalker, what did you mean when you wrote "you thought it'd be more logical..."?
I'm pretty sure it was selective/inclusive.</p>
<p>What about the essence question?
I can't believe I put phlegmatic instead of mercurous on one of the CR!!</p>
<p>it is. you're right.</p>
<p>jahxbah was asking some questions on the vague + tricky part of the question</p>
<p>Hmmm what about the red marble and green marble one. I put 6 originally because red would be bigger, but to start out with red is already bigger than green so i put 0. Is this right? or is it still 6?</p>
<p>how the heck did you guys get 9 for number of triplets </p>
<p>heres the question:
If a triplet factors is a number that can be expressed as the sum of 3 consecutive integers how many triplets are there upto 1000
well
1+2+3 = 6, 2+3+4 =9, 3+4+5=12
anyone see a pattern?
so u just do 999-3 / 3 (1/3 numbers is a triplet factor)
and you get 332!
or i'm a freaking crazy insane retard.... </p>
<p>btw which reading was experimental,
i had one with SETI, one with Richard Nixon, and then another one....</p>
<p>btw did anyone else think the CR was crazy harder than usual... at least the sent. completions</p>
<p>SETI is real, richard is fake.</p>
<p>the marble thing answer is 20.</p>
<p>it would be more logical to write about leaders who havent had the best administrations instead of writing about potential candidates who havent had the chance to administer.</p>
<p>i def. used the placant instead of mercruial:(</p>
<p>it as multiplied. not added. u have to multiply 123. ect.</p>
<p>8 red marbles. You have 3 reds and 4 greens to begin. You pull out 13. If you pull out 7 red and 6 green they're tied. For red to be greatest, you must have 8 red (and 5 green).</p>
<p>The Venn diagram question's answer is 10. The numbers in the center are part of EVERY set.</p>
<p>So if I got one math wrong, is there still a chance of an 800?</p>
<p>yea the marble thing was 20.</p>
<p>the CR was pretty damn easy IMO.</p>
<p>1 wrong = 770-790.</p>
<p>and the answer for verbal thing was mercurial.</p>
<p>whats the marble question again? i think it was also too easy and overlooked the actual question.</p>
<p>alright, do all of u remember about "Mediators... intervene in..." in the writing section? what was the answer???</p>