Both. Lots of participles shit.I don't even know what that means!
back in the day I knew my latin vocab like the back of my hand. I could translate stuff at breakneck speed.
the key to vocab is NOTECARDS. I'm not talking about a few, I'm talking about rain man level, shoebox stuffing amounts of notecards. then drill drill drill like you were john mccain or sarah palin.
Everybody knows that a good nights rest is worth more than the hours of panicked learning you gain.not exactly. if it's something like an english outline for a final or a presentation, you can easily cram it. it's a really bad idea for a language class though with all the memorization.
Done that plenty of times. Sometimes you just gotta.
Thanks to demi, Arvie's next thread will be: "Getting up at 4AM to masturbate rocks!":lolDone that plenty of times. Sometimes you just gotta.
I agree, pulled a few all-nighters in college. Man I wish I had one of those 5 Hour Energy things, too... :-\
You really like jerking it that much, huh.
I gotta wake up at 3AM on a Sunday to go work. Bite me.
Plus when I get there, I get to be the only American on a conference call with many guys/gals in India...
I'm not going to know what's going on... my heads going to hurt.
Because I'm a philosophy major, and because you do learn a lot about English from it, which everyone will agree I need. Also I would have taken French but as I live in a bilingual country, I was afraid I would get shown up by people who already know it.Oh, that's a relevant reason. But I would recommend learning it on your own or just auditing the class since it's not going to do your gpa any good taking tests like this.
and because you do learn a lot about English from it, which everyone will agree I need.Taking Latin probably isn't the most practical way to go about addressing your basic grammar and usage problems, though learning the etymology of words will probably help your vocabulary.
Not the most practical no. While you're here malek. For Critical thinking I have the questionAre you asking me if that's invalid? Yeah, it's invalid. You're supposed to deny the consequent (necessary condition)
"If the banks are still open, then I better hurry downtown. But the banks are closed, so I guess there's no need to hurry."
That is
If Open(p) then Hurry(q)
Not Open(p)
Therefor Not Hurry(q)
Right?
That's not Modus Tollens right? which is what the answers have it as. It should be Denying the antecedent correct?
Ok good then. It's just the book had it as valid and I was worried I was stupid.