Riot09
Member
100 posts on this thread:balloon:
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
2009 SC Marathon (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Amogh
- Start date
FTW
Member
ok here it is. You might have to control + scroll to zoom in on the red circle Image - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting
deviousgeek
The Game.
Feh, you've memorized them.
FTW
Member
Lol i've done them so much I think I know every question.... occasionally i get one wrong though.
that looks uber proLol i've done them so much I think I know every question.... occasionally i get one wrong though.
around 3 seconds or less per question :jaw:
but ye..whats the point in literally 'remembering' the questions
What is the right answer?
@ Riot, you just calculated the value of the equation. The inverse would be the negative of that number and its reciprocal (-9.0625 and 1/9.0625)
Next Question
What type of reaction is the rusting of iron?
Riot09
Member
What three things are needed for combustion to occur?
oxygen,a fuel and a spark or heat energy,i think.
a square has an area of 64 square centimetres.if each side is double in size what will be the new area?(please show working out-and dont use a calculator,as this is a non-cal question)thankyou.
oxygen,a fuel and a spark or heat energy,i think.
a square has an area of 64 square centimetres.if each side is double in size what will be the new area?(please show working out-and dont use a calculator,as this is a non-cal question)thankyou.
Length of square = 8cm. (square root of 64 is 8)
If the length is doubled, it will be 16cm, therefore the area will be (16^2)cm^2.
16 x 16 = 256.
Area = 256cm^2
[I don't really have a question right now]
FTW
Member
(3^3^2)/3^-2
Riot09
Member
the meaning of life?
my favourite philosopher had this to say on the topic.
Aristotle’s best answer for how one should live was the concept of eudaimonia. Unfortunately this word has been tough to translate to English, so there are two favored translations I’m aware of. The first is “happiness,” and the second is “human flourishing.” Most other translations I’ve seen are variations on one of these. Personally I might translate this term as “fulfillment,” although that’s not perfectly accurate either. Eudaimonia is a process of living virtuously, not a fixed state of being. It’s not really an emotion like “happiness” suggests. Aristotle came up with this answer because he found that eudaimonia was the only potential goal of life that could be considered an end in itself rather than a means to another end. I think this is the reason that happiness is perhaps the most popular translation because happiness is an end in itself, not a means to anything else.
Aristotle was interested in finding a right way to live, if such a thing could be said to exist. His answer of eudaimonia consists of two main components: virtuous action and contemplation. The main problem is that the means to discover the virtues was to look at people who seemed to be flourishing and living virtuously and take note of how they lived. As it turned out, such people would usually behave with some degree of integrity, honor, courage, honesty, rationality, fairness, etc. This is not merely an internal observation that one assesses in oneself — such values can be witnessed from the outside in, so Aristotle makes some progress here in attempting to create a semi-objective standard for right living. Like Socrates, Aristotle was also sentenced to death, but he chose to flee Athens and live in exile. (I tell you I’m immensely grateful to live in a society where philosophizing doesn’t currently carry the death penalty.)
The main problem I see in Aristotle’s insightful attempt to answer this question is that his solution is somewhat circular. In order to live well, we need to live virtuously and spend time on self-reflection and study, but how do we know what criteria to use in selecting the virtues or in choosing what to study? We basically have to find people that seem to be living well and flourishing — or in Aristotle’s time, it was suggested that we might also strive to emulate the gods, since they certainly seemed to be doing well. This isn’t unlike certain religions today that provide a model of virtue to attempt to emulate. Aristotle doesn’t answer one key question though: What is the best life one could possibly live? Eudaimonia suggests a way to go about finding the answer to this question, but it still leaves some gaping holes.
After Aristotle many others addressed the question of how to live. Every religion has its own answer. Some people say there’s no answer, that the answer doesn’t matter, that the answer is impossible for us to know, or that the answer is purely a matter of personal choice. The worst answer of all though is what most people do — to ignore the question entirely.
and In order to do this, Aristotle had to first establish the so called virtuous. He began by determining that everything was done with some goal in mind and that goal is 'good':
Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and choice of action, is thought to have some good as its object. This is why the good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavor. (NE 1.1)
But, if action A is done with the goal B, the goal B would also have a goal, goal C. Goal C would also have a goal and this would continue until something stopped the infinite regress. This was the Highest Good.
Now, if there is some object of activities that we want for its own sake (and others only because of that), and if it is not true that everything is chosen for something else - in which case there will be an infinite regress that will nullify all our striving - it is plain that this must be the good, the highest good. Would not knowing it have a great influence on our way of living? Would we not be better at doing what we should, like archers with a target to aim at? (NE 1.2)
Aristotle said the Highest Good must have three characteristics:
desirable for its own sake
not desirable for the sake of some other good
all other ‘goods’ desirable for its sake
Aristotle resolves this Highest Good in eudaemonia, which is usually translated as "happiness," but could also be "well-being" or "flourishing." "What is the highest good in all matters of action? As to the name, there is almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the meaning of happiness." (NE 1.4)
What does APEC stand for, and when was it established?
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation,The first APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting occurred in 1993 to archieve more effective economic cooperation across the Pacific Rim region.
my turn again,lets see what i got here.
the perimeter of a rectangle is 24cm.
what could of the following area's could the rectangle be?(theres more that one answer)
a.11cm^2 b.27cm^2 c.35cm^2 d.40cm^2 (please show working out) thank you
my favourite philosopher had this to say on the topic.
Aristotle’s best answer for how one should live was the concept of eudaimonia. Unfortunately this word has been tough to translate to English, so there are two favored translations I’m aware of. The first is “happiness,” and the second is “human flourishing.” Most other translations I’ve seen are variations on one of these. Personally I might translate this term as “fulfillment,” although that’s not perfectly accurate either. Eudaimonia is a process of living virtuously, not a fixed state of being. It’s not really an emotion like “happiness” suggests. Aristotle came up with this answer because he found that eudaimonia was the only potential goal of life that could be considered an end in itself rather than a means to another end. I think this is the reason that happiness is perhaps the most popular translation because happiness is an end in itself, not a means to anything else.
Aristotle was interested in finding a right way to live, if such a thing could be said to exist. His answer of eudaimonia consists of two main components: virtuous action and contemplation. The main problem is that the means to discover the virtues was to look at people who seemed to be flourishing and living virtuously and take note of how they lived. As it turned out, such people would usually behave with some degree of integrity, honor, courage, honesty, rationality, fairness, etc. This is not merely an internal observation that one assesses in oneself — such values can be witnessed from the outside in, so Aristotle makes some progress here in attempting to create a semi-objective standard for right living. Like Socrates, Aristotle was also sentenced to death, but he chose to flee Athens and live in exile. (I tell you I’m immensely grateful to live in a society where philosophizing doesn’t currently carry the death penalty.)
The main problem I see in Aristotle’s insightful attempt to answer this question is that his solution is somewhat circular. In order to live well, we need to live virtuously and spend time on self-reflection and study, but how do we know what criteria to use in selecting the virtues or in choosing what to study? We basically have to find people that seem to be living well and flourishing — or in Aristotle’s time, it was suggested that we might also strive to emulate the gods, since they certainly seemed to be doing well. This isn’t unlike certain religions today that provide a model of virtue to attempt to emulate. Aristotle doesn’t answer one key question though: What is the best life one could possibly live? Eudaimonia suggests a way to go about finding the answer to this question, but it still leaves some gaping holes.
After Aristotle many others addressed the question of how to live. Every religion has its own answer. Some people say there’s no answer, that the answer doesn’t matter, that the answer is impossible for us to know, or that the answer is purely a matter of personal choice. The worst answer of all though is what most people do — to ignore the question entirely.
and In order to do this, Aristotle had to first establish the so called virtuous. He began by determining that everything was done with some goal in mind and that goal is 'good':
Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and choice of action, is thought to have some good as its object. This is why the good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavor. (NE 1.1)
But, if action A is done with the goal B, the goal B would also have a goal, goal C. Goal C would also have a goal and this would continue until something stopped the infinite regress. This was the Highest Good.
Now, if there is some object of activities that we want for its own sake (and others only because of that), and if it is not true that everything is chosen for something else - in which case there will be an infinite regress that will nullify all our striving - it is plain that this must be the good, the highest good. Would not knowing it have a great influence on our way of living? Would we not be better at doing what we should, like archers with a target to aim at? (NE 1.2)
Aristotle said the Highest Good must have three characteristics:
desirable for its own sake
not desirable for the sake of some other good
all other ‘goods’ desirable for its sake
Aristotle resolves this Highest Good in eudaemonia, which is usually translated as "happiness," but could also be "well-being" or "flourishing." "What is the highest good in all matters of action? As to the name, there is almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the meaning of happiness." (NE 1.4)
What does APEC stand for, and when was it established?
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation,The first APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting occurred in 1993 to archieve more effective economic cooperation across the Pacific Rim region.
my turn again,lets see what i got here.
the perimeter of a rectangle is 24cm.
what could of the following area's could the rectangle be?(theres more that one answer)
a.11cm^2 b.27cm^2 c.35cm^2 d.40cm^2 (please show working out) thank you
deviousgeek
The Game.
How do you guy's know all this stuff
mirakon
nigga
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,221
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Hayzazz is correct (well done), but it would also be useful to add that this referendum also voted to include Aboriginals in the Census, which meant that for the first time, Aboriginals were counted amongst the population in Australia.
However back to the last question:
24=2(x+y)........ (as 2(x+y) is formula for perimeter where x and y are the two adjacent sides)
This means that dividing both sides by 2
12= x+y
Solutions of the above equation are:
(x,y)= (1,11), (2,10), (3,9), (4,8), (5,7), (6,6)
Therefore as area is equal to xy, substitute the above values of x and y into the equation
xy= 11, 20, 27, 32, 35, 36
So the answers are a, b and c as 11cm^2, 20cm^2 and 27cm^2 are solutions
As for the meaning of life, I personally believe it is the existence of oneself, because without the existence of oneself, one's perception of life cannot exist and therefore to ourselves life has no relevance and no meaning.
Sorry I can't think of a question. Can someone please continue for me?
Last edited:
Well I assumed that it counted as one of the rights of being an Australian Citizen ._.
Riot09
Member
question 83 a to e of the 2004 maths school certificate,would be very helpful and please include working out thankyou.
www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/schoolcertificate
i got my history and electie history tests back today and i came first out of the whole grade and class respectively.
When John and Sam went to a shop to buy pens they had the same amount of money. John bought 3 pens and had $5.20 left while Same bought 5 pens and had $2 left.
How much money did each of them have originally?
solve stimultaneously?
How much money did each of them have originally?
solve stimultaneously?
stevey6404
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 134
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Let x be the original amount and y be the cost of each pen
John: x - 3y = 5.2 (1)
Same: x - 5y = 2 (2)
(1)-(2)
therefore 2y = 3.2
y = 1.60
sub in y into (2)
x - 5 x 1.6 = 2
x = 10
Therefore original amount was $10
Question: Who sacked Whitlam in 1975?
Cee.
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 110
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
John Kerr, the Governer-General. I'm not too sure on this one?
Question:
What is the difference between series and parallel circuit?
Ah Sir.John Kerr did sack Whitlam.
A parallel circuit has many paths for the current to move along. If one item in the circuit is broken, this does not affect the other items. In a series the current flows through every item in the circuit, and if one item is broken the circuit is broken, thus the others will no longer work.
Physics is not my strong point and looking at a diagram of each is much more explanatory than what i just said.
Question: How much money does the government commit to aid through AusAID every year?(In my trial I lost a mark because I quoted the wrong number in my extended response lol)
A parallel circuit has many paths for the current to move along. If one item in the circuit is broken, this does not affect the other items. In a series the current flows through every item in the circuit, and if one item is broken the circuit is broken, thus the others will no longer work.
Physics is not my strong point and looking at a diagram of each is much more explanatory than what i just said.
Question: How much money does the government commit to aid through AusAID every year?(In my trial I lost a mark because I quoted the wrong number in my extended response lol)