Write My Paper For Me -
Comparison between Oxidative Addition and -Bond Metathesis as
bu resume blitz Years covered: 1999 to 2017. Last FIDE rating: 2826 (2909 rapid, 2948 blitz) Highest rating achieved in database: 2882. * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 993 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic. (born Nov-30-1990, 26 years old) Norway. Magnus Carlsen (full name: Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen) is the metathesis 16th undisputed World Champion. Argumentative. He won the crown from Viswanathan Anand in November 2013 and successfully defended it in a return contest with the former title holder in November 2014. In November 2016, he retained his crown when he defeated the metathesis Challenger, Sergey Karjakin, in the rapid game tiebreaker after the 12-game classical match was tied. Psychiatry Essay Prize. FM (2002); IM (2003); GM (2004); vice-World U12 World Champion (2002); Norwegian Champion (2006); Candidate (2007 2013); World Champion (2013 2014); World Rapid Champion (2014 2015) and World Blitz Champion (2009 2014), winner of the Grand Chess Tour (2015), five-time winner at Wijk aan Zee (2008 (jointly with Levon Aronian), 2010, 2013, 2015 2016). Carlsen has been the world's top ranked player since January 2010, apart from six months between November 2010 and June 2011 when he was #2, and metathesis, possesses the highest standard FIDE rating ever posted, as well as the highest ever live rating. Thesis Art History Paper. In January 2016, he became the first person to be the world #1 in standard, rapid and c-h bond metathesis, blitz chess.
IM norms Carlsen earned his first IM norm in January 2003 at the Gausdal Troll Masters when he scored 7/10. His second IM norm came in June 2003 at the Salongernas IM-tournament in Stockholm where he scored 6/9 and his third IM norm came in the following month at the 2003 Politiken Cup in Copenhagen where he scored 8/11. GM norms In early 2004, Carlsen made a major international impact when he won Corus C with 10.5/13, easily winning his first grandmaster norm and is a in an, earning his entry to c-h bond metathesis, the Corus B in 2005. Motivational For Adolescent Substance Of The. Carlsen obtained his second grandmaster norm in the 3rd Aeroflot Festival (2004) in February and his third grandmaster norm at the sixth 6th Dubai Open (2004), held between 18th and 28th April. He was born in Tnsberg, Vestfold.
His parents are Sigrun en and Henrik Carlsen, both of whom are engineers. C-h Bond. His father taught him chess at the age of eight after which he soon played his first tournament, a junior (Miniputt) Norwegian championship. He was coached by seven-time Norwegian Champion Simen Agdestein and by Torbjorn Ringdal Hansen. He won the interviewing for adolescent use a review title of International Master in 2003 at the age of 12 years 7 months and 25 days. Metathesis. In 2004, after having gained over write art history 300 rating points in little over a year, he became the second-youngest grandmaster in chess history at the time, behind only Sergey Karjakin, at the age of 13 years 4 months and 27 days.
Parimarjan Negi later pipped his record by five days to become the second youngest grandmaster ever. C-h Bond. Age : Carlsen won the Norwegian U11 Championship in 2000 and the U10 Nordic Championship in 2001. In 2002, he placed =1st in the Open Norwegian Junior Championship with 5.5/7, but easily won the same event the following year with 6/6. Carlsen started with 4/4 at the 2002 U12 European Championship but faded to finish sixth. Marketing Case Study Questions. In the 2002 U12 World Championship a few weeks later, Carlsen was sole leader coming into the last round, but was held to a draw by David Howell, enabling Ian Nepomniachtchi to equal his score and to win on c-h bond metathesis tiebreak. He placed =3rd at the 2003 U14 European Championship, half a point behind Sergei Zhigalko and essay, Tornike Sanikidze, a short time later placing =9th with 7.5/11 at the World U14 Championship in Halkidiki. National and Continental : A couple of weeks after being eliminated from the FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2004) (see below), he placed =1st in the 2004 Norwegian Championship. However, after a two-game play-off match with co-leader and until then, six-time Norwegian champion, Berge Ostenstad was drawn, stenstad was declared winner on metathesis tiebreak. In the 2005 Norwegian Chess Championship, Carlsen again finished in a shared first place, this time with his mentor Simen Agdestein.
A rapid game playoff between them resulted in Agdestein’s victory by 3.5-2.5 (+2 -1 =3). Carlsen finally won the underlined essay Norwegian Championship in 2006, after defeating Simen Agdestein in a tie-break match. Carlsen’s first and and so far only participation in c-h bond metathesis, the continental championship provided a solid 22-point boost to his rating when he scored 8/13 in the 6th European Individual Championship (2005). Thesis Art History Paper. World : Carlsen qualified for c-h bond the FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2004), but was eliminated in the first round tiebreaker by Levon Aronian. His hopes to become a contender for the World Championship in the future took a big step forward by write thesis paper, placing tenth at the FIDE World Cup (2005), becoming the youngest player ever to qualify for c-h bond metathesis the Candidates. In his first Candidates match in argumentative essay, Elista in May, he drew 3-3 in the six slow games of the Candidates Match: Aronian - Carlsen (2007) before losing in rapid-play tie-breaks. He reached the final four in the World Chess Cup (2007) before being defeated in the semi-finals by the eventual winner, Gata Kamsky. Carlsen's final placing in the 2007 World Cup qualified him for participation in the FIDE Grand Prix for 2008-09. Soon afterwards he tied for metathesis first place in the Baku Grand Prix (2008), the first round of write thesis, FIDE's inaugural Grand Prix series. Carlsen later withdrew from the Grand Prix cycle despite his excellent result in Baku, complaining about dramatic changes to . regulations. and that “…changing the rules dramatically in the middle of metathesis, a cycle is simply unacceptable.” On the basis of his rating, Carlsen qualified for review of the the Candidates Tournament that would determine the challenger to World Champion Viswanathan Anand in 2012.
In November 2010, however, Carlsen announced he was withdrawing from the Candidates tournament. Carlsen described the 2008–12 cycle as not . C-h Bond Metathesis. sufficiently modern and fair, and added that Reigning champion privileges, the long (five year) span of the cycle, changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates) that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion. My Dream Essay. Carlsen qualified for the World Championship Candidates (2013) that was played in London, again on c-h bond metathesis the basis of his rating. He placed =1st with Vladimir Kramnik on paper 8.5/14 after both players lost their last round games, but as the first tiebreaker (score against each other in the tournament which was 1-1) failed to break the tie, he won on c-h bond metathesis the second tiebreak which stipulated that the player with the greater number of wins takes first place; he had scored five wins to Kramnik's four. During the tournament, Carlsen set a new live rating record of my dream playground essay, 2878.9 after he defeated Gelfand in round 10. In November 2013, Carlsen won the c-h bond Anand - Carlsen World Championship (2013) that was staged in Chennai. The first four games were drawn before Carlsen won the interviewing for adolescent substance of the literature fifth and sixth games. The seventh and metathesis, eighth games were drawn, with Carlsen then winning the essay differences ninth game and drawing the tenth and last game to c-h bond metathesis, win by 6.5-3.5 (+3 =7). World Championship Defence 2014. Carlsen defended his World Championship title against motivational for adolescent substance review Anand - who won the right to challenge for c-h bond the title by winning the World Chess Championship Candidates (2014) that was held in March 2014 - in marketing case study questions, Sochi in c-h bond metathesis, Russia in November 2014. The first game of the Carlsen - Anand World Championship (2014) was a fighting draw with Carlsen playing Black and successfully defending a Grunfeld.
He drew first blood in write, game two playing the metathesis White side of a quiet Ruy Lopez, breaking down Black's defences before the first time control. My Dream Playground. After the first rest day, Anand struck back strongly playing the White side of a Queen's Gambit Declined (D37), and overcame Carlsen before the first time control. In game 4, Anand played the Sicilian but Carlsen steered the opening into a quiet positional struggle that ended in a draw. Game 5 featured a Queen's Indian Defence by Carlsen which also ended in a draw. Game 6 may have been the c-h bond turning point in thesis art history, the match. Anand missed a simple tactical stroke as Black that would have given him a very strong, if not winning position and the lead in the match. After missing this continuation, Anand's game weakened and metathesis, Carlsen brought home the point to take the lead in the match for the second time.
Game 7 was another Berlin Defence by Anand who encountered difficulties and surrendered a piece for two pawns. Interviewing For Adolescent Use A Review. However, his defence kept Carlsen at bay for 122 moves before the c-h bond metathesis game was finally drawn due to insufficient mating material on the board. Essay Prize. Game 8 in the match was another QGD, with Carlsen playing Black introducing an innovation from his home preparation that guaranteed him a relatively easy draw. C-h Bond. After another rest day, play resumed with Carlsen playing the is a poem underlined White side of a Ruy Lopez that turned into a Berlin Defence by Anand. The game quickly came to an end through a draw by repetition, with Carlsen content to maintain his one-point lead. C-h Bond. In Game 10, Carlsen again defended a Grunfeld, albeit not as convincingly as in Game 1. However, he defended a long initiative by Anand to secure a drew to global marketing case, continue to maintain his one point lead.
Game 11 was another Berlin Defence by Anand which turned into a complex and hard fought middle game following an innovation by c-h bond, Anand on the queenside, which was followed by an exchange sacrifice. Carlsen successfully defended to bring home the final point needed to secure his title for another two years. Motivational Review Literature. Match result: Carlsen won by c-h bond metathesis, 6.5-4.5 (+3 -1 =7). World Championship Defence 2016. Carlsen's next defence of his classical world title was in prize, November 2016, starting November 11th, in New York City. Sergey Karjakin won the right to challenge him by finishing clear first in metathesis, the World Championship Candidates (2016). Review. Carlsen retained his title when he drew the classical games 6-6 (+1 -1 =10) and won the c-h bond rapid game tiebreaker 3-1 (+2 =2). See Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) for more information. World Championship Defence 2018. Although he will almost certainly be defending his title in 2018 against the Challenger emerging from the interviewing review of the literature preceding Candidates tournament, Carlsen exercised his right as World Champion to participate in the World Cup (2017).
In the c-h bond first round, he played the lowest seeded player, Nigerian IM Oluwafemi Balogun, defeating him 2-0 in motivational use a review of the literature, the classical games to move onto round 2 where he met and defeated veteran Russian GM Alexey Dreev by metathesis, 2-0. However, Carlsen was eliminated in the third round when he lost to marketing case study questions, Bu Xiangzhi by 0.5-1.5, having lost the first game to a sacrificial attack by the Chinese GM. 2004-2007 Carlsen placed 3rd at the 12th Sigeman Co Chess Tournament (2004) followed later that month with a solid =3rd place at the Politiken Cup 2004, a half point behind the leaders Darmen Sadvakasov and compatriot Leif Erlend Johannessen. In October 2005, he won the Gausdal Bygger'n Masters in c-h bond metathesis, Norway with 8/9 ahead of 9 other grandmasters. He continued to argumentative on gender, improve in 2006, tying Alexander Motylev for first place in Corus Group B (2006). After several more strong performances during the c-h bond year, including 6.5/9 at the XXII Reykjavik Open (2006), =2nd at Bosna Sarajevo Tournament (2006), =2nd behind Sergei Shipov at the Midnight Sun Challenge at Breivika videregaende skole in Norway, =2nd at Biel Int'l Festival (2006) (after beating the winner Alexander Morozevich twice), first at the Gausdal Classics GM-A and a joint second-place finish at Linares - Morelia (2007), he crossed the 2700-mark, the youngest player ever to do so.
A relatively poor result at Dortmund (2007) (3/7) was followed by a win at Biel Chess Festival (2007) (His score was equaled by playground, Alexander Onischuk and so they played a tie-breaker match to determine the winner. C-h Bond Metathesis. After drawing two rapid and two blitz games, Carlsen won the is a poem underlined in an Armageddon game) and a par for rating =2nd at the Arctic Chess Challenge (2007) where he scored 7/9, a half point behind the metathesis leader Alexander Moiseenko, and 3rd at the Tal Memorial (2007) in November 2007. 2008-2009 In 2008 Carlsen was the joint winner of Corus (2008) A-Group together with Levon Aronian, and global marketing study questions, placed second in c-h bond metathesis, Morelia-Linares (2008) behind Anand. He won clear first place at Aerosvit (2008) with a dominant 8/11 score. Argumentative Differences. His disappointing third placement at 41st Biel International Chess Festival (2008) with 6/10, a half point behind joint winners Leinier Dominguez Perez and Evgeny Alekseev, was nevertheless still a 2740 performance, whilst his equal second in the Bilbao Grand Slam Chess Final (2008) with 5.0/10 was a 2768 performance. His relatively meagre 7/13 at Corus (2009) was followed by equal second placement behind Kramnik at Dortmund (2009) with a 2773 performance and 2nd with 5/9 at the M-Tel Masters (2009). The arrival of Garry Kasparov in 2009 as his coach enabled Carlsen's finest tournament performance to date, and one of the best tournament results in the history of chess.
Carlsen eclipsed a stellar field consisting of Topalov, Peter Leko, Dmitry Jakovenko, Teimour Radjabov and Wang Yue to c-h bond metathesis, win clear first prize with 8/10 at is a underlined in an essay the category XXI Pearl Spring Chess Tournament (2009). Carlsen's performance rating for the tournament was a record 3002 and lifted his FIDE rating in the November 2009 list to 2801, which made him only the fifth player to c-h bond, surpass 2800, and easily the youngest. After a slow start, Carlsen placed equal second with Vassily Ivanchuk behind Vladimir Kramnik in the Category XXI Tal Memorial (2009), which fielded ten of the world's top thirteen rated players. He saw out interviewing for adolescent substance use a review literature, 2009 with a win at the London Chess Classic (2009), a point ahead of c-h bond, Kramnik, a result which pushed him to the top of the world ratings in January 2010. Is A Underlined. 2010-2012 In 2010, Carlsen's success continued, winning Corus (2010) outright with 8.5/13, half a point ahead of joint second place finishers Kramnik and Alexey Shirov. In June, he won the category XXI King's Tournament (2010) in Bazna in Romania by c-h bond metathesis, a clear two points with 7.5/10 and write paper, a 2918 performance.
Following mediocre performances at the 2010 Olympiad and the category XXII Bilbao Masters (2010), Carlsen returned to metathesis, form by winning the category XXI Nanjing Pearl Spring Tournament (2010) outright with 7/10 (+4 -0 =6) and a 2901 rating performance, a full point ahead of World Champion Anand who took outright second with 6/10, and finishing the year by essay on gender differences, winning the London Chess Classic (2010) for c-h bond metathesis the second time in succession. Interviewing For Adolescent Use A Of The. After a slow start in metathesis, the Tata Steel (2011) super tournament, Carlsen finished =3rd with Levon Aronian behind Hikaru Nakamura and Anand with 8/13 and a performance rating of 2821. He followed up in June by winning the underlined in an Bazna King's Tournament (2011) on tiebreak ahead of Karjakin, both finishing with 6.5/10, and by c-h bond, winning Biel Chess Festival (2011) in essay differences, July with a round to spare and c-h bond metathesis, with a final score of 7/10 (TPR 2835). Playground Essay. After another characteristically slow start, Carlsen placed =1st with Ivanchuk at the 4th Bilbao Masters (2011) with 15 points under the Bilbao scoring system (+3 -1 =6) and metathesis, a 2842 performance rating, ultimately winning the differences tournament in metathesis, a blitz tiebreaker. Argumentative Essay. Then in November 2011, Carlsen won the Tal Memorial (2011) on metathesis tiebreak with 5.5/9 (+2 =7 -0 and on gender differences, a TPR of 2850) over Aronian. Carlsen finished 2011 with 3rd place at the category 20 London Chess Classic (2011) behind Kramnik and Nakamura, scoring +3 =5 (TPR of 2879).
2012 started with =2nd (+4 -1 =8; TPR 2830) behind Aronian and alongside Radjabov and metathesis, Fabiano Caruana at the Category 21 Tata Steel (2012). He won the category 22 Tal Memorial (2012) outright with 5.5/9 (+2 =7) and motivational review of the literature, a TPR of 2849. The month after his strong results in the World Blitz he finished outright second behind Wang Hao in the Grandmaster Tournament of the Biel Chess Festival (2012). In October 2012, Carlsen repeated his 2011 feat at Bilbao by winning the metathesis Bilbao Masters (2012) in write thesis, a tiebreaker, this time against Caruana. He finished up 2012 by winning the c-h bond metathesis London Chess Classic (2012), the third time he has done so, with a score of 6.5/8 (+5 =3 -0) and a TPR of 2994 (only fractionally below his record effort at Pearl Springs in 2009). London 2012 was also made historic for the fact that Carlsen's result lifted his January 2013 rating to a new record, exceeding Kasparov's record 2851 by 10 points. 2013 Building on his achievements of 2012, Carlsen won the category 20 Tata Steel (2013) tournament with a round to spare, his final score being 10/13.
He also set a new live rating record of 2874 after his round 12 win over Nakamura, although this was superseded at the Candidates in March. In May 2013 he played in the category 21 Norway Chess Tournament (2013) held in the Stavanger Region of Norway and came 2nd with 5.5/9, half a point behind the my dream essay winner Sergey Karjakin; in the preliminary Norway Chess Tournament (Blitz) (2013) held to determine the draw, he came 2nd with 6/9 behind Karjakin, thereby earning 5 games as White out of the 9 to be played. C-h Bond Metathesis. In June he again came outright 2nd, this time at the category 22 Tal Memorial (2013), half a point behind the interviewing substance review winner Boris Gelfand. His last hit out metathesis, before the art history World Championship match against Anand in c-h bond, November 2013 was the essay category 22 double round robin Sinquefield Cup (2013), which he won outright with 4.5/6 (+3 =3; TPR of 2966). 2014 Carlsen's first tournament as World Champion was the Zurich Chess Challenge (2014), the first ever category 23 tournament (average rating 2801). He came from behind to take equal first with Aronian in the Zurich Chess Challenge (Blitz) (2014), which determined the colors in the main event (Carlsen has 4 whites and c-h bond metathesis, 1 black). By round 4 of the global study questions standard time event, he extended his live rating to 2882.6, breaking the record he established in round 3. His round 5 draw with Anand enabled him to c-h bond, finish the standard time event in first place, 2 scoring points ahead of Aronian. Poem Underlined Essay. He needed 3.5/5 in the Zurich Chess Challenge (Rapid) (2014) played on the final day to guarantee his win in the event, however his 2/5 result was sufficient to win the combined event by c-h bond, one point under the scoring system used. Thesis. His next event was the c-h bond category 22 Gashimov Memorial (2014), a new event in honor of the late Azeri GM Vugar Gashimov, which he won outright with a score of 6.5/10, defeating Fabiano Caruana, his rival for first prize, in the last round. Although he was the marketing study only undefeated player at the Norway Chess Tournament (2014), he won insufficient games to win the event, which was successfully defended by last year's winner, Sergei Karjakin. In August 2014, he played in the category 23 (only the c-h bond second such strength event) Sinquefield Cup (2014) and came outright second with 5.5/10, 3 points behind Caruana, the runaway leader of the global marketing case study questions tournament.
2015 Following his successful defence of his title against Anand in November 2014, Carlsen won the Tata Steel (2015) outright with a score of 9/13 (+6 -1 =6), his six wins scored in succession after starting the event poorly with two draws and a loss. In April 2015, Carlsen won the category 21 Gashimov Memorial (2015) outright for metathesis the second year in succession with a powerful score of 7/9 (+5 =4), a full point clear of a resurgent Viswanathan Anand, who was outright runner up with 6/9. This high was followed by argumentative, a low at the category 22 Norway Chess (2015) in Stavanger in June 2015, when he crashed and c-h bond metathesis, burned to his worst tournament result in almost a decade. After losing his first round game on time to write, Topalov in a won position, Carlsen never recovered and c-h bond, registered a 3.5/9 (+2-4=3) result that slashed 23 points from his rating. A slow start in the category 22 Sinquefield Cup (2015) following an early loss to Topalov, was followed by three successive wins which enabled Carlsen to global marketing case study, draw level with the leader by round 5, before the rest day. However, a crucial loss to metathesis, Grischuk from an advantageous position and missed opportunities to win against Nakamura relegated him to equal second in the event, a point behind the outright winner Levon Aronian. This result also caused him to shed a few ratings points.
Still struggling with his form, Carlsen began his campaign at the category 23 London Chess Classic (2015) with his characteristic slow start, but was able to finish equal first in the ninth and final round with a win over Alexander Grischuk, scoring 5.5/9 alongside Anish Giri and write paper, a surging Maxime Vachier-Lagrave. A three way rapid game tiebreak resulted in Carlsen winning the tournament as well as the c-h bond metathesis Grand Chess Tour of 2015. He finished 2015 with a flourish when he won the powerful Qatar Masters (2015) by sharing first with an undefeated 7/9, then winning 2-0 in the blitz playoff against Yu Yangyi. His tiebreak wins against poem underlined Yu Yangyi also elevated him back to world #1 in blitz. 2016 The year started in the best possible way for Carlsen when he scored 9/13 to win outright at the category 20 Tata Steel (2016) event, a point ahead of c-h bond metathesis, Caruana and Ding Liren. This was his fifth win at my dream Wijk aan Zee, tying with Anand for the record number of wins at this event, which has been running since 1938. In April, he won the c-h bond Norway Chess (2016) event for the first time, scoring 6/9 to finish outright first, a half point ahead of outright second placed Aronian who won their individual game; Carlsen also won the essay preliminary Norway Blitz (2016) with 7.5/9, a point ahead of outright second placed Giri, to win the c-h bond metathesis right to underlined in an essay, five starts as white in the nine round principal tournament.
In July, Carlsen emerged as the outright winner of the Bilbao (2016), well ahead of the runner up Nakamura. 2017 Wesley So broke Carlsen's winning run at Wijk aan Zee, with the latter finishing outright second on 8/13 at the Tata Steel (2017). C-h Bond. In April Carlsen finished equal second alongside Caruana with 4/7 (+1=6), a point and a half behind outright winner Aronian at is a in an the category 20 GRENKE Chess Classic (2017). After easily winning the Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2017) to determine the draw for the main event, Carlsen returned his worst result in over a decade to score 4/9 at the category 22 Altibox Norway (2017), narrowly missing out on last place and coming to within one game of losing his number one world ranking. He regained some form at the category 22 Sinquefield Cup (2017), placing second with 5.5/9, half a point behind the winner Vachier-Lagrave, the only player who defeated Carlsen in c-h bond metathesis, this event.
He seems to have returned to form with an uncontested first place in the powerful Isle of Man Open (2017), finishing with 7.5/9, half a point clear of Anand and Nakamura, and also boosting his rating back to 2838 (live), his best since April 2017. Carlsen won the Glitnir Blitz Tournament in essay on gender, 2006 in Iceland. In September 2006 Carlsen placed 8th out of metathesis, 16 participants at the World Blitz Championship (2006) in Rishon LeZion, Israel. Essay Prize. In the blitz tournament associated with the Tal Memorial 2006, namely the Tal Blitz Cup, Carlsen scored 17½/34 points and placed 9th in a group of 18 participants. In March 2007, Carlsen played for the first time in the Melody Amber blind and rapid chess tournament in Monte Carlo. In the 11 rounds of the 16th Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2007), he achieved eight draws and three losses (placing =9th) then scored three wins, seven draws and one loss in the 16th Amber Tournament (Rapid) (2007) (=2nd), for an overall 8th place in the combined tournament. In March 2008, Carlsen played for metathesis the second time in the Melody Amber blind and rapid chess tournament, which was held in Nice for poem underlined essay the first time. Carlsen achieved four wins, four draws and two losses in the Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2008), and three wins, two losses, and six draws in the Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2008), resulting in c-h bond metathesis, a shared second place in the overall tournament. In the Chess Classic Mainz (2008), Carlsen finished in second place after losing the final to defending champion Anand 3:1 (two losses, two draws). 2009 saw Carlsen score equal first in the Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2009) with 7/11 alongside Kramnik and Aronian, and equal second with Veselin Topalov at in an essay M-Tel Masters (2009) behind Shirov with a 2822 performance. C-h Bond. He also won the poem underlined in an essay XXII Magistral Ciudad de Leon (2009), a rapid knockout tournament, ahead of Morozevich, Ivanchuk, and Wang Yue.
Just a few days after his 2nd placement at the Tal Memorial (2009), he won the metathesis World Blitz Championship (2009) with 31/42, a full three points ahead of runner-up Anand. He shared first place at the 2010 Amber Rapid and Blindfold Tournament with Ivanchuk; scoring 6½ points in the blindfold and 8 points in the rapid, Carlsen accumulated 14½ from a possible 22 points. After a slow start in the Arctic Securities Chess Stars (2010) rapid tournament, he continued his success by defeating Anand in the two-game playoff for gold. In the World Blitz Championship (2010), held in Moscow on 16–18 November, Carlsen attempted to defend his 2009 title. Playground Essay. With a score of 23½/38, he finished in third place behind Radjabov and the winner Aronian. After the tournament, Carlsen played a private 40-game blitz match against Hikaru Nakamura, winning with a score of 23½–16½. C-h Bond Metathesis. A phenomenal 9.5/11, 2.5 points clear of the field, in 20th Amber Tournament (Rapid) (2011) was insufficient for him to win the essay overall contest, as his results in the 20th Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2011) were poor, resulting in metathesis, a 2nd overall to 2008 and 2009 overall winner Aronian.
In July 2012 he came clear 2nd in the World Rapid Championship (2012) behind Karjakin with 10.5/15, and clear 2nd in the World Blitz Championship (2012) with 19.5/30, half a point behind Alexander Grischuk. In June 2014, he realized his ambition to be the triple champion (of standard, rapid and blitz chess) when he won the FIDE World Rapid Championship (2014) with 11/15, half a point ahead of on gender, runner-up Caruana, and metathesis, the FIDE World Blitz Championship (2014) with 17/21, one point clear of write art history paper, Nepomniachtchi and Nakamura. In October 2015, he successfully backed up to defend his title at the World Rapid Championship (2015), scoring 11.5/15, a point clear of c-h bond, runners-up Leinier Dominguez Perez, Teimour Radjabov and Ian Nepomniachtchi. Carlsen was second in the Paris Grand Chess Tour, placing second to Nakamura in thesis paper, the Grand Chess Tour Paris Rapid (2016) and metathesis, equal first in the Grand Chess Tour Paris Blitz (2016) alongside Nakamura to take second place behind the US grandmaster. Soon afterward, he was overall first in the Leuven legs of the is a poem in an essay Grand Chess Tour, having won both the YourNextMove Rapid (2016) and the YourNextMove Blitz (2016).
Carlsen won his final event before the upcoming Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) in New York, when he won the final of the Carlsen-Nakamura Chess.com Blitz Battle (2016) against Hikaru Nakamura. Carlsen obtained a large lead after the 5m+2spm and metathesis, 3m+2spm sections and narrowly lost the bullet 1m+1spm with a final score of 14.5-10.5. He placed equal first with 11/15 alongside Ivanchuk and Grischuk at essay the World Rapid Championship (2016), but placed third on countback. His unsuccessful attempt to defend his crown at the World Blitz Championship (2016) was a similarly tight affair, with Carlsen losing on countback to the 2016 World Championship Challenger Sergei Karjakin, both scoring 16.5/21. The following year in 2017, Carlsen won both the Paris and Leuven legs of the c-h bond Grand Chess Tour of 2017 to lead the competition ahead of the underlined essay Sinquifield and London legs to be staged later in 2017: he won the metathesis Grand Chess Tour Paris (Rapid) (2017) with 7/9 ahead of Grischuk and backed up with equal fourth at motivational for adolescent use a review literature the Grand Chess Tour Paris (Rapid) (2017) to win the Paris leg on c-h bond aggregate. Argumentative Essay On Gender. At Leuven, Carlsen was third with 5.5/9 at the YourNextMove (Rapid) (2017) and clear winner by four points at the YourNextMove (Blitz) (2017) to take out the Leuven leg on aggregate. The DSB Bank match between Loek van Wely and Magnus Carlsen took place 28th April - 1st May 2006. The four game classical time limit match was tied 2-2. Carlsen won the c-h bond blitz portion of the match 3.5-0.5. He won a rapid match against Peter Leko held in Miskolc, Hungary, scoring 5:3 (+2 =6).
Carlsen played in essay prize, a curtain raiser to the Norwegian Championship, winning the Carlsen - Predojevic Rapid Match (2013) by c-h bond, 2.5-1.5 (+1 =3); the motivational for adolescent substance use a literature match was organized by metathesis, the Nansen Center for motivational for adolescent review literature Peace and Dialogue to celebrate the long-standing relationship between Lillehammer and Sarajevo. (1) Olympiad : Carlsen represented Norway on metathesis board one in the 36th Olympiad (2004), the 37th Chess Olympiad (2006), the Olympiad (2008), the Chess Olympiad (2010), the Chess Olympiad (2014) and in is a underlined in an essay, the Chess Olympiad (2016). C-h Bond Metathesis. His best result was in the 2006 Olympiad, where he scored 6 points from 8 games and on gender, came 5th for board one. In 2016, he scored 7.5/10 placing 6th on board one, assisting his twelfth seeded Norwegian team to c-h bond metathesis, place 5th. National He played board 1 for Norway at the European Team Chess Championships (2007) and won an individual silver medal. He again played board 1 for psychiatry Norway at the European Team Championship (2015), but returned a very poor result with 3.5/7, losing another 16 rating points to bring him down to his lowest rating (2834) since January 2012. Club Carlsen played four seasons in the European Club Cup. In 2001 and 2003 he played for Asker Norway on metathesis board 6 and board 1 (after he had gained his FM title) respectively, while his father Henrik was reserve on both occasions. In 2007 he played board 3 for OS Baden Baden, and in 2008 he played top board for review literature MIKA Yerevan. His total game result from these 4 seasons was 15.5/27 (+11 -7 =9). He also played in the Norwegian Team Championship in 2002, 2003, 2005 and metathesis, 2006, in the Bundesliga in the 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007/08, 2008-09 seasons, and in the Dutch Team Championship 2007. Other Team In August 2006, he played in the NH Hotels event featuring the older Experience Team vs Youth team (easily won by argumentative essay on gender, the Youth team 28–22), and was equal top scorer with Alexander Beliavsky with 6.5/10.
Ratings and rankings : The highest official rating achieved by metathesis, Carlsen to use a of the literature, date was 2882 in May 2014. Metathesis. His highest live rating was 2889.2 on essay on gender 21 April 2014. Both are the highest ratings ever achieved. Metathesis. By the end of the essay October 2017 rating period, Carlsen will have been world number one for a total of 87 months. He holds the c-h bond record for the longest period as the world's top ranked Junior (U20) - 36 months - from playground 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2010. He was also both world number one junior and world number one player for the first 10 months of metathesis, 2010.
Furthermore, he holds the my dream playground record for the highest rating acquired by any player aged 13, and 17 through to c-h bond metathesis, 24 inclusive. Carlsen won the motivational interviewing for adolescent use a of the literature Chess Oscars for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 and he was also awarded Norway's annual Peer Gynt Prize for 2011 for being a person or institution that has achieved distinction in society. C-h Bond. (2) After he won the World Championship he was awarded Norway's Name of the essay prize Year award for 2013. (3) He has two sisters, Ellen Oen Carlsen and Ingrid Oen Carlsen. Carlsen helped Anand prepare for the World Chess Championships in c-h bond, 2007 and 2008 and essay differences, 2010. Carlsen has modeled for G-Star Raw, starting with its Autumn/Winter 2010 advertising campaign. At the Sohn Conference held in New York in May 2015, Carlsen demonstrated his skill by playing three players in a blindfold clock simul. Carlsen and each of the three players were given nine minutes. C-h Bond Metathesis. Carlsen won 3-0. A video of the event can be seen at the link in marketing, footnote (4) . On September 22, 2016 he was in New York City to play a simul against 11 users of the Play Magnus mobile app. Everybody had 30 minutes on c-h bond metathesis their clocks. Magnus won 11 to 0 (Carlsen Play Live Simul (2016)).
Stealing Domdaniel 's lines, are we? Magnus has not to prove anything to for adolescent substance of the, you, besides he has proven you wrong long ago. He is the World Champ, and who is you? A detractor and c-h bond metathesis, hater, poor soul.. Plenty of tournament wins too, and poem underlined in an, played four long world championship matches against Karpov, one of the c-h bond metathesis top three players in history and capable of wiping out top ten opposition without breaking a sweat, without losing any of them. Magnus has not to prove anything to you, besides he has proven you wrong long ago. Underlined. He is the c-h bond metathesis World Champ, and who is you? A detractor and hater, poor soul.. Hate ta break it ta tolengoof , but no-one has to prove pissall to argumentative on gender differences, him.
1. He prove me wrong. 2. Win more open tourneys outside Norway. 3. Win olympic gold medals-plural. 4. Win the world cup. 5. and more to come. Plenty of tournament wins too, and played four long world championship matches against Karpov, one of the top three players in history and capable of metathesis, wiping out write, top ten opposition without breaking a sweat, without losing any of th. I Love Kasparov, I dont think he had 27 major tournament victories by c-h bond, 26. Can someone verify? If Magnus didnt have an extraordinary amount of talent to begin with would they have backed him? He used the write thesis resources that he had, only normal. C-h Bond. Fiacher preferred to work alone, each to their own.
Maybe Fischer would have been weaker with seconds anyway, no computer analysis back then. So pointless comparing the.2 periods. 1. He prove me wrong. 2. Win more open tourneys outside Norway. 3. Win olympic gold medals-plural. 4. Win the world cup. 5. and more to come. He doesnt have to prove anything. He's already one of the greats. Where he finishes in history ia upto him.
Imagine he plays until 40, thats another 13 something years to achieve things, scary when you think about it. Global Marketing Questions. Too much randomness in world cups anyway. A loss and your pretty much out. If the format was longer, say 4 to 6 classical per round would be much better to see who is stronger. The way the format is, you can fall victim to prep and metathesis, be pretty much out in a round. More to come. is telling. You're admitting to my dream, making things up in future to hold your argument. Probably not if he was born and raise in the Philippines. he would have to do it all by himself.
But no. he was spoon fed since birth. Wesley on the other hand. was left to c-h bond, fend off for himself, since day one. Write Thesis Art History. Fischer won the title at 29. Carlsen at 26 already has 27 major tournament titles, with 3 World Championship Wins. A load of horse manure.
Tell it to metathesis, the marines. Magnus is backed by a battalion company including extra ordinary armoured special forces. ie. seconds, coaches, chef, rich uncles and more. since day one. While. hmmmm. Fischer single-handedly with some help from his little friend GM Eugene defeated the motivational interviewing for adolescent use a of the literature Russian machinery. at ease. In terms of talent and disposal. Fischer still lords over Magnus by a wide margin.
No questions asked. And your answer was: So pointless comparing the.2 periods. It seems to me that you are the metathesis one moving the goal posts to write thesis art history paper, suit your purpose. You showed excessive pride and self-satisfaction in Magnus achievements and his abilities and when countered your argument it's so pointless to compare him with Fischer. C-h Bond. That's what loser would do. and I do know one if I see one. Prize. so lick your wound. Conjecture without firm evidence. in short, speculation. But if Magnus was a Filipino, his name would be Magno.
Fact. And if your grandmother was your grandpa, she would have balls----speculation. See the c-h bond difference. Psychiatry Essay Prize. He is a notorious troller, feeding from the response he receives. Nobody take him seriously, so no need to rectify his ridicules claims.
Incidentally, you've got this -- she would have balls -- the wrong way round (just like you get most things, now that I think of it). The original is c-h bond metathesis, a Yiddish proverb (though there are many variant versions, like a chess opening, yah?) which goes If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather. You *do* see the difference, don't you? Incidentally, you've got this -- she would have balls -- the my dream playground wrong way round (just like you get most things, now that I think of it). C-h Bond. The original is a Yiddish proverb (though there are many variant versions, like a chess opening, yah?) which goes If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather. Essay On Gender Differences. You *do* see the difference, don't you? Exciting times ahead. Are we going to metathesis, surpass the level of the modus ponens/modus tollens discussion on on gender differences Rogoff? Yeah, that'll work.
Somebody must be new on the internet. But it's worth a try reasoning with those who unawarely feed the troll. Especially a troll who is so trollish that he's barred from posting on his hero's own page. The original is a Yiddish proverb (though there are many variant versions, like a chess opening, yah?) which goes If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather. You *do* see the difference, don't you? Yes, I do see the difference. I made my own. not from a Yiddish proverb if there is such a thing. Now I am flattered. He is a notorious troller A troll I am just because we differ in opinion. I didn't think your head swell that much. Metathesis. but oh well. My Dream. so convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature to find fault and accuse someone without firm evidence. Nobody take him seriously, Exciting times ahead.
That's not a match but an c-h bond, execution. Prize. However, I like the pretty boys on metathesis the announcement of a death match between Williams and Finegold. Will it mean one of the two will be silent forever after the match?
Academic Proofreading -
CH Bond Activation of Hydrocarbons Mediated by Rare-Earth Metals
If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? It is metathesis, a commonplace of scientific discussion that correlation does not imply causation. Business Week recently ran an spoof article pointing out some amusing examples of the dangers of inferring causation from correlation. For example, the article points out that Facebook’s growth has been strongly correlated with the yield on Greek government bonds: (credit) Despite this strong correlation, it would not be wise to poem underlined in an essay conclude that the c-h bond, success of Facebook has somehow caused the current (2009-2012) Greek debt crisis, nor that the Greek debt crisis has caused the global marketing case, adoption of Facebook!
Of course, while it’s all very well to metathesis piously state that correlation doesn’t imply causation, it does leave us with a conundrum: under what conditions, exactly, can we use experimental data to deduce a causal relationship between two or more variables? The standard scientific answer to this question is that (with some caveats) we can infer causality from a well designed randomized controlled experiment. Unfortunately, while this answer is satisfying in principle and sometimes useful in practice, it’s often impractical or impossible to do a randomized controlled experiment. And so we’re left with the interviewing for adolescent substance use a review of the literature, question of whether there are other procedures we can use to infer causality from experimental data. C-h Bond Metathesis. And, given that we can find more general procedures for poem in an essay, inferring causal relationships, what does causality mean, anyway, for how we reason about a system?
It might seem that the answers to such fundamental questions would have been settled long ago. In fact, they turn out to be surprisingly subtle questions. Over the past few decades, a group of scientists have developed a theory of c-h bond metathesis, causal inference intended to address these and other related questions. This theory can be thought of as an algebra or language for global case study, reasoning about cause and metathesis effect. Many elements of the theory have been laid out in a famous book by one of the main contributors to the theory, Judea Pearl. Although the theory of causal inference is not yet fully formed, and is still undergoing development, what has already been accomplished is motivational interviewing review of the literature, interesting and worth understanding. In this post I will describe one small but important part of the theory of causal inference, a causal calculus developed by Pearl. This causal calculus is a set of three simple but powerful algebraic rules which can be used to c-h bond make inferences about causal relationships.
In particular, I’ll explain how the causal calculus can sometimes (but not always!) be used to infer causation from on gender, a set of data, even when a randomized controlled experiment is not possible. C-h Bond. Also in the post, I’ll describe some of the limits of the causal calculus, and some of essay, my own speculations and c-h bond metathesis questions. The post is a little technically detailed at points. However, the my dream playground, first three sections of the post are non-technical, and I hope will be of broad interest. Throughout the c-h bond, post I’ve included occasional “Problems for the author”, where I describe problems I’d like to solve, or things I’d like to understand better. Feel free to ignore these if you find them distracting, but I hope they’ll give you some sense of my dream essay, what I find interesting about the subject. Incidentally, I’m sure many of these problems have already been solved by others; I’m not claiming that these are all open research problems, although perhaps some are. They’re simply things I’d like to understand better. Also in the post I’ve included some exercises for the reader, and some slightly harder problems for the reader.
You may find it informative to metathesis work through these exercises and problems. Before diving in, one final caveat: I am not an expert on causal inference, nor on statistics. Motivational Substance Use A Review. The reason I wrote this post was to help me internalize the ideas of the causal calculus. Occasionally, one finds a presentation of a technical subject which is beautifully clear and c-h bond metathesis illuminating, a presentation where the author has seen right through the subject, and is able to convey that crystalized understanding to others. That’s a great aspirational goal, but I don’t yet have that understanding of causal inference, and poem in an essay these notes don’t meet that standard. C-h Bond Metathesis. Nonetheless, I hope others will find my notes useful, and that experts will speak up to correct any errors or misapprehensions on thesis art history paper, my part. Let me start by c-h bond explaining two example problems to illustrate some of the difficulties we run into when making inferences about causality. The first is known as Simpson’s paradox. To explain Simpson’s paradox I’ll use a concrete example based on the passage of the Civil Rights Act in my dream playground essay, the United States in metathesis, 1964.
In the US House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, while a much higher percentage, 80 percent, of essay, Republicans voted for metathesis, the Act. You might think that we could conclude from this that being Republican, rather than Democrat, was an important factor in causing someone to vote for the Civil Rights Act. However, the picture changes if we include an additional factor in the analysis, namely, whether a legislator came from a Northern or Southern state. If we include that extra factor, the situation completely reverses, in both the North and the South. Here’s how it breaks down: North: Democrat (94 percent), Republican (85 percent)
South: Democrat (7 percent), Republican (0 percent) Yes, you read that right: in argumentative essay on gender differences, both the North and the South, a larger fraction of Democrats than Republicans voted for the Act, despite the fact that overall a larger fraction of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Act. You might wonder how this can possibly be true. I’ll quickly state the raw voting numbers, so you can check that the arithmetic works out, and then I’ll explain why it’s true. You can skip the numbers if you trust my arithmetic. North: Democrat (145/154, 94 percent), Republican (138/162, 85 percent) South: Democrat (7/94, 7 percent), Republican (0/10, 0 percent)
Overall: Democrat (152/248, 61 percent), Republican (138/172, 80 percent) One way of c-h bond metathesis, understanding what’s going on is to is a poem in an note that a far greater proportion of Democrat (as opposed to Republican) legislators were from the South. In fact, at c-h bond, the time the House had 94 Democrats, and only 10 Republicans. Because of this enormous difference, the very low fraction (7 percent) of argumentative on gender, southern Democrats voting for metathesis, the Act dragged down the Democrats’ overall percentage much more than did the even lower fraction (0 percent) of southern Republicans who voted for the Act. (The numbers above are for the House of Congress.
The numbers were different in the Senate, but the same overall phenomenon occurred. I’ve taken the numbers from Wikipedia’s article about Simpson’s paradox, and there are more details there.) If we take a naive causal point of substance of the, view, this result looks like a paradox. As I said above, the overall voting pattern seems to c-h bond suggest that being Republican, rather than Democrat, was an important causal factor in voting for motivational interviewing use a review, the Civil Rights Act. Yet if we look at the individual statistics in both the North and the South, then we’d come to the exact opposite c-h bond conclusion. To state the same result more abstractly, Simpson’s paradox is the fact that the correlation between two variables can actually be reversed when additional factors are considered. So two variables which appear correlated can become anticorrelated when another factor is poem underlined, taken into account. You might wonder if results like those we saw in voting on the Civil Rights Act are simply an unusual fluke. But, in fact, this is not that uncommon. Wikipedia’s page on metathesis, Simpson’s paradox lists many important and similar real-world examples ranging from understanding whether there is gender-bias in art history paper, university admissions to which treatment works best for kidney stones. Metathesis. In each case, understanding the global case questions, causal relationships turns out to be much more complex than one might at first think.
I’ll now go through a second example of Simpson’s paradox, the kidney stone treatment example just mentioned, because it helps drive home just how bad our intuitions about statistics and causality are. Imagine you suffer from kidney stones, and your Doctor offers you two choices: treatment A or treatment B. Your Doctor tells you that the two treatments have been tested in a trial, and treatment A was effective for a higher percentage of patients than treatment B. If you’re like most people, at this point you’d say “Well, okay, I’ll go with treatment A”. Here’s the gotcha. Keep in c-h bond metathesis, mind that this really happened . Suppose you divide patients in the trial up into those with large kidney stones, and those with small kidney stones. Then even though treatment A was effective for a higher overall percentage of patients than treatment B, treatment B was effective for paper, a higher percentage of c-h bond, patients in both groups , i.e., for my dream playground essay, both large and small kidney stones. So your Doctor could just as honestly have said “Well, you have large [or small] kidney stones, and treatment B worked for c-h bond metathesis, a higher percentage of on gender differences, patients with large [or small] kidney stones than treatment A”. If your Doctor had made either one of these statements, then if you’re like most people you’d have decided to go with treatment B, i.e., the exact opposite treatment.
The kidney stone example relies, of course, on the same kind of c-h bond, arithmetic as in the Civil Rights Act voting, and global marketing questions it’s worth stopping to figure out for yourself how the c-h bond metathesis, claims I made above could possibly be true. Motivational Interviewing Substance Review Of The. If you’re having trouble, you can click through to the Wikipedia page, which has all the c-h bond metathesis, details of the numbers. Now, I’ll confess that before learning about Simpson’s paradox, I would have unhesitatingly done just as I suggested a naive person would. Indeed, even though I’ve now spent quite a bit of time pondering Simpson’s paradox, I’m not entirely sure I wouldn’t still sometimes make the same kind of mistake. I find it more than a little mind-bending that my heuristics about how to behave on the basis of statistical evidence are obviously not just a little wrong, but utterly, horribly wrong. Perhaps I’m alone in having terrible intuition about how to interpret statistics. But frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if most people share my confusion.
I often wonder how many people with real decision-making power – politicians, judges, and so on – are making decisions based on prize, statistical studies, and yet they don’t understand even basic things like Simpson’s paradox. C-h Bond Metathesis. Or, to put it another way, they have not the first clue about global case study statistics. Partial evidence may be worse than no evidence if it leads to an illusion of knowledge, and so to c-h bond overconfidence and certainty where none is justified. It’s better to know that you don’t know. Correlation, causation, smoking, and write thesis art history lung cancer. As a second example of the difficulties in establishing causality, consider the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In 1964 the United States’ Surgeon General issued a report claiming that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Metathesis. Unfortunately, according to Pearl the evidence in the report was based primarily on correlations between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
As a result the report came under attack not just by tobacco companies, but also by some of the thesis, world’s most prominent statisticians, including the great Ronald Fisher. They claimed that there could be a hidden factor – maybe some kind of genetic factor – which caused both lung cancer and c-h bond people to in an want to smoke (i.e., nicotine craving). If that was true, then while smoking and lung cancer would be correlated, the decision to smoke or not smoke would have no impact on whether you got lung cancer. Now, you might scoff at this notion. But derision isn’t a principled argument. And, as the example of metathesis, Simpson’s paradox showed, determining causality on underlined essay, the basis of correlations is tricky, at best, and can potentially lead to contradictory conclusions.
It’d be much better to have a principled way of using data to conclude that the relationship between smoking and lung cancer is not just a correlation, but rather that there truly is a causal relationship. One way of demonstrating this kind of causal connection is to do a randomized, controlled experiment. We suppose there is some experimenter who has the power to intervene with a person, literally forcing them to either smoke (or not) according to the whim of the experimenter. Metathesis. The experimenter takes a large group of people, and randomly divides them into two halves. One half are forced to smoke, while the for adolescent substance literature, other half are forced not to smoke. By doing this the c-h bond metathesis, experimenter can break the global marketing questions, relationship between smoking and any hidden factor causing both smoking and lung cancer. By comparing the cancer rates in the group who were forced to smoke to those who were forced not to smoke, it would then be possible determine whether or not there is truly a causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.
This kind of randomized, controlled experiment is highly desirable when it can be done, but experimenters often don’t have this power. In the case of smoking, this kind of experiment would probably be illegal today, and, I suspect, even decades into the past. And even when it’s legal, in many cases it would be impractical, as in the case of the Civil Rights Act, and for many other important political, legal, medical, and econonomic questions. To help address problems like the two example problems just discussed, Pearl introduced a causal calculus. In the remainder of this post, I will explain the rules of the causal calculus, and use them to analyse the smoking-cancer connection. We’ll see that even without doing a randomized controlled experiment it’s possible (with the aid of some reasonable assumptions) to infer what the outcome of metathesis, a randomized controlled experiment would have been, using only relatively easily accessible experimental data, data that doesn’t require experimental intervention to force people to motivational substance use a review of the smoke or not, but which can be obtained from c-h bond metathesis, purely observational studies. To state the rules of the causal calculus, we’ll need several background ideas. I’ll explain those ideas over the next three sections of this post. The ideas are causal models (covered in underlined in an essay, this section), causal conditional probabilities , and d-separation , respectively.
It’s a lot to swallow, but the ideas are powerful, and worth taking the c-h bond metathesis, time to my dream understand. With these notions under our belts, we’ll able to understand the metathesis, rules of the my dream playground essay, causal calculus. To understand causal models, consider the following graph of possible causal relationships between smoking, lung cancer, and c-h bond metathesis some unknown hidden factor (say, a hidden genetic factor): This is a quite general model of causal relationships, in the sense that it includes both the suggestion of the US Surgeon General (smoking causes cancer) and also the suggestion of the tobacco companies (a hidden factor causes both smoking and cancer). Indeed, it also allows a third possibility: that perhaps both smoking and some hidden factor contribute to lung cancer. This combined relationship could potentially be quite complex: it could be, for example, that smoking alone actually reduces the chance of write art history paper, lung cancer, but the hidden factor increases the metathesis, chance of motivational interviewing for adolescent use a review of the literature, lung cancer so much that someone who smokes would, on c-h bond metathesis, average, see an increased probability of lung cancer. This sounds unlikely, but later we’ll see some toy model data which has exactly this property. Of course, the model depicted in the graph above is not the interviewing use a review, most general possible model of causal relationships in this system; it’s easy to imagine much more complex causal models.
But at the very least this is an interesting causal model, since it encompasses both the US Surgeon General and the tobacco company suggestions. I’ll return later to the possibility of c-h bond, more general causal models, but for now we’ll simply keep this model in motivational interviewing use a of the literature, mind as a concrete example of a causal model. Mathematically speaking, what do the arrows of causality in the diagram above mean? We’ll develop an answer to that question over the next few paragraphs. It helps to start by c-h bond moving away from the specific smoking-cancer model to allow a causal model to be based on a more general graph indicating possible causal relationships between a number of variables: Each vertex in this causal model has an associated random variable, . For example, in the causal model above could be a two-outcome random variable indicating the presence or absence of some gene that exerts an marketing questions, influence on whether someone smokes or gets lung cancer, indicates “smokes” or “does not smoke”, and indicates “gets lung cancer” or “doesn’t get lung cancer”. The other variables and would refer to other potential dependencies in this (somewhat more complex) model of the smoking-cancer connection.
A notational convention that we’ll use often is to interchangeably use to refer to c-h bond a random variable in the causal model, and differences also as a way of labelling the corresponding vertex in the graph for the causal model. It should be clear from context which is meant. We’ll also sometimes refer interchangeably to the causal model or to the associated graph. For the notion of causality to make sense we need to constrain the c-h bond metathesis, class of poem in an essay, graphs that can be used in c-h bond, a causal model. Obviously, it’d make no sense to have loops in global marketing study, the graph: We can’t have causing causing causing ! At least, not without a time machine. C-h Bond Metathesis. Because of in an essay, this we constrain the metathesis, graph to art history be a directed acyclic graph, meaning a (directed) graph which has no loops in it. By the way, I must admit that I’m not a fan of the term directed acyclic graph. It sounds like a very complicated notion, at least to my ear, when what it means is very simple: a graph with no loops. I’d really prefer to call it a “loop-free graph”, or something like that.
Unfortunately, the “directed acyclic graph” nomenclature is pretty standard, so we’ll go with it. Our picture so far is that a causal model consists of a directed acyclic graph, whose vertices are labelled by random variables . To complete our definition of causal models we need to capture the allowed relationships between those random variables. Intuitively, what causality means is that for any particular the only random variables which directly influence the value of are the c-h bond, parents of motivational use a literature, , i.e., the metathesis, collection of random variables which are connected directly to playground . For instance, in the graph shown below (which is the same as the complex graph we saw a little earlier), we have : Now, of course, vertices further back in the graph – say, the parents of the parents – could, of course, influence the c-h bond metathesis, value of . But it would be indirect, an thesis art history paper, influence mediated through the parent vertices. Note, by the way, that I’ve overloaded the c-h bond, notation, using to denote a collection of random variables. I’ll use this kind of overloading quite a bit in the rest of this post. In particular, I’ll often use the notation (or , or ) to denote a subset of random variables from the graph. Motivated by the above discussion, one way we could define causal influence would be to write paper require that be a function of its parents: where is some function. In fact, we’ll allow a slightly more general notion of causal influence, allowing to not just be a deterministic function of the parents, but a random function. We do this by requiring that be expressible in the form: where is a function, and c-h bond metathesis is a collection of random variables such that: (a) the marketing questions, are independent of one another for different values of ; and c-h bond metathesis (b) for each , is global marketing case questions, independent of all variables , except when is itself, or a descendant of . The intuition is that the are a collection of auxiliary random variables which inject some extra randomness into (and, through , its descendants), but which are otherwise independent of the c-h bond metathesis, variables in the causal model. Summing up, a causal model consists of a directed acyclic graph, , whose vertices are labelled by my dream playground random variables, , and each is expressible in the form for some function . The are independent of one another, and each is independent of all variables , except when is or a descendant of . In practice, we will not work directly with the functions or the auxiliary random variables . Instead, we’ll work with the following equation, which specifies the causal model’s joint probability distribution as a product of conditional probabilities:
I won’t prove this equation, but the expression should be plausible, and is pretty easy to prove; I’ve asked you to prove it as an optional exercise below. Prove the above equation for c-h bond metathesis, the joint probability distribution. (Simpson’s paradox in causal models) Consider the causal model of psychiatry essay, smoking introduced above. Suppose that the hidden factor is a gene which is either switched on c-h bond metathesis, or off. If on, it tends to make people both smoke and get lung cancer.
Find explicit values for conditional probabilities in psychiatry, the causal model such that , and yet if the additional genetic factor is taken into account this relationship is reversed. That is, we have both and . An alternate, equivalent approach to defining causal models is as follows: (1) all root vertices (i.e., vertices with no parents) in c-h bond, the graph are labelled by independent random variables. (2) augment the graph by playground essay introducing new vertices corresponding to the . These new vertices have single outgoing edges, pointing to . (3) Require that non-root vertices in the augmented graph be deterministic functions of their parents. C-h Bond Metathesis. The disadvantage of this definition is that it introduces the on gender differences, overhead of dealing with the c-h bond metathesis, augmented graph. But the argumentative essay on gender differences, definition also has the advantage of cleanly separating the stochastic and deterministic components, and c-h bond I wouldn’t be surprised if developing the theory of causal inference from this point of view was stimulating, at the very least, and may possibly have some advantages compared to the standard approach. So the problem I set myself (and anyone else who is interested!) is to carry the consequences of this change through the rest of the theory of causal inference, looking for advantages and disadvantages. I’ve been using terms like “causal influence” somewhat indiscriminately in the discussion above, and so I’d like to pause to argumentative differences discuss a bit more carefully about what is metathesis, meant here, and what nomenclature we should use going forward. All the arrows in a causal model indicate are the possibility of a direct causal influence. This results in two caveats on how we think about causality in these models. First, it may be that a child random variable is actually completely independent of the value of one (or more) of its parent random variables.
This is, admittedly, a rather special case, but is perfectly consistent with the definition. For example, in a causal model like. it is possible that the outcome of cancer might be independent of the hidden causal factor or, for that matter, that it might be independent of whether someone smokes or not. Global Marketing Questions. (Indeed, logically, at least, it may be independent of c-h bond, both, although of course that’s not what we’ll find in the real world.) The second caveat in how we think about the arrows and causality is write paper, that the arrows only capture the direct causal influences in the model. It is possible that in metathesis, a causal model like. will have a causal influence on through its influence on and . This would be an indirect causal influence, mediated by argumentative essay differences other random variables, but it would still be a causal influence. In the next section I’ll give a more formal definition of causal influence that can be used to make these ideas precise. In this section I’ll explain what I think is the most imaginative leap underlying the causal calculus. It’s the introduction of the concept of causal conditional probabilities . The notion of ordinary conditional probabilities is no doubt familiar to you. It’s pretty straightforward to do experiments to estimate conditional probabilities such as , simply by looking at c-h bond, the population of people who smoke, and figuring out what fraction of those people develop cancer. Is A. Unfortunately, for c-h bond metathesis, the purpose of understanding the causal relationship between smoking and art history cancer, isn’t the quantity we want. As the tobacco companies pointed out, there might well be a hidden genetic factor that makes it very likely that you’ll see cancer in anyone who smokes, but that wouldn’t therefore mean that smoking causes cancer.
As we discussed earlier, what you’d really like to do in c-h bond metathesis, this circumstance is a randomized controlled experiment in which it’s possible for the experimenter to force someone to smoke (or not smoke), breaking the causal connection between the hidden factor and smoking. Motivational Use A Review Literature. In such an experiment you really could see if there was a causal influence by looking at what fraction of people who smoked got cancer. In particular, if that fraction was higher than in the overall population then you’d be justified in concluding that smoking helped cause cancer. In practice, it’s probably not practical to do this kind of randomized controlled experiment. C-h Bond Metathesis. But Pearl had what turns out to be a very clever idea: to imagine a hypothetical world in which it really is possible to force someone to (for example) smoke, or not smoke. In particular, he introduced a conditional causal probability , which is the conditional probability of cancer in this hypothetical world. This should be read as the (causal conditional) probability of cancer given that we “do” smoking, i.e., someone has been forced to smoke in a (hypothetical) randomized experiment. Now, at first sight this appears a rather useless thing to do. But what makes it a clever imaginative leap is that although it may be impossible or impractical to is a poem in an do a controlled experiment to determine , Pearl was able to establish a set of rules – a causal calculus – that such causal conditional probabilities should obey.
And, by making use of metathesis, this causal calculus, it turns out to sometimes be possible to infer the value of motivational interviewing for adolescent use a review literature, probabilities such as , even when a controlled, randomized experiment is impossible. And that’s a very remarkable thing to be able to do, and c-h bond metathesis why I say it was so clever to have introduced the notion of causal conditional probabilities. We’ll discuss the rules of the causal calculus later in this post. For now, though, let’s develop the notion of causal conditional probabilities. Suppose we have a causal model of some phenomenon: Now suppose we introduce an external experimenter who is able to intervene to argumentative differences deliberately set the value of c-h bond metathesis, a particular variable to . Marketing. In other words, the c-h bond metathesis, experimenter can override the other causal influences on that variable. This is argumentative on gender differences, equivalent to having a new causal model: In this new causal model, we’ve represented the experimenter by a new vertex, which has as a child the metathesis, vertex . All other parents of are cut off, i.e., the edges from the write art history, parents to are deleted from the graph. In this case that means the edge from to has been deleted. This represents the metathesis, fact that the experimenter’s intervention overrides the psychiatry prize, other causal influences. (Note that the edges to the children of are left undisturbed.) In fact, it’s even simpler (and equivalent) to consider a causal model where the parents have been cut off from , and no extra vertex added: This model has no vertex explicitly representing the experimenter, but rather the relation is replaced by the relation . We will denote this graph by , indicating the c-h bond metathesis, graph in which all edges pointing to psychiatry have been deleted.
We will call this a perturbed graph , and the corresponding causal model a perturbed causal model . In the perturbed causal model the only change is to delete the edges to , and to c-h bond replace the relation by the relation . Our aim is to use this perturbed causal model to compute the conditional causal probability . In this expression, indicates that the term is omitted before the write thesis art history paper, , since the value of is set on metathesis, the right. By definition, the causal conditional probability is argumentative essay differences, just the c-h bond, value of the probability distribution in the perturbed causal model, . To compute the on gender, value of the probability in the perturbed causal model, note that the probability distribution in the original causal model was given by. where the product on the right is over all vertices in the causal model. This expression remains true for the perturbed causal model, but a single term on c-h bond metathesis, the right-hand side changes: the conditional probability for the term. In particular, this term gets changed from to , since we have fixed the value of to be . As a result we have: This equation is a fundamental expression, capturing what it means for an experimenter to intervene to set the argumentative on gender, value of some particular variable in a causal model. It can easily be generalized to a situation where we partition the variables into metathesis, two sets, and , where are the variables we suppose have been set by intervention in a (possibly hypothetical) randomized controlled experiment, and are the remaining variables:
Note that on study questions, the right-hand side the values for c-h bond, are assumed to be given by the appropriate values from and . Motivational Interviewing Substance Use A. The expression  can be viewed as a definition of causal conditional probabilities. But although this expression is fundamental to c-h bond metathesis understanding the causal calculus, it is not always useful in practice. The problem is that the values of some of the motivational substance use a review literature, variables on metathesis, the right-hand side may not be known, and cannot be determined by experiment. Consider, for example, the case of argumentative essay on gender, smoking and cancer. Recall our causal model: What we’d like is to compute . C-h Bond. Unfortunately, we immediately run into a problem if we try to use the expression on the right of equation : we’ve got no way of estimating the conditional probabilities for smoking given the essay differences, hidden common factor. So we can’t obviously compute . And, as you can perhaps imagine, this is the kind of problem that will come up a lot whenever we’re worried about the possible influence of some hidden factor. All is not lost, however. C-h Bond. Just because we can’t compute the expression on the right of  directly doesn’t mean we can’t compute causal conditional probabilities in underlined, other ways, and we’ll see below how the causal calculus can help solve this kind of c-h bond, problem. It’s not a complete solution – we shall see that it doesn’t always make it possible to compute causal conditional probabilities. Essay On Gender. But it does help.
In particular, we’ll see that although it’s not possible to compute for this causal model, it is possible to compute in a very similar causal model, one that still has a hidden factor. With causal conditional probabilities defined, we’re now in position to define more precisely what we mean by causal influence. Suppose we have a causal model, and and are distinct random variables (or disjoint subsets of random variables). C-h Bond. Then we say has a causal influence over global study, if there are values and of and metathesis of such that . In other words, an external experimenter who can intervene to change the value of can cause a corresponding change in essay differences, the distribution of values at . The following exercise gives an information-theoretic justification for this definition of causal influence: it shows that an c-h bond metathesis, experimenter who can intervene to psychiatry essay prize set can transmit information to if and only if the above condition for causal inference is met. (The causal capacity) This exercise is for c-h bond metathesis, people with some background in information theory.
Suppose we define the causal capacity between and to poem essay be , where is the mutual information, the c-h bond metathesis, maximization is over possible distributions for (we use the differences, hat to indicate that the value of is being set by intervention), and is the corresponding random variable at , with distribution . Shannon’s noisy channel coding theorem tells us that an external experimenter who can intervene to set the value of can transmit information to an observer at at a maximal rate set by the causal capacity. Metathesis. Show that the poem, causal capacity is greater than zero if and c-h bond metathesis only if has a causal influence over poem underlined essay, . We’ve just defined a notion of causal influence between two random variables in metathesis, a causal model. What about when we say something like “Event A” causes “Event B”? What does this mean? Returning to essay on gender the smoking-cancer example, it seems that we would say that smoking causes cancer provided , so that if someone makes the choice to c-h bond metathesis smoke, uninfluenced by other causal factors, then they would increase their chance of cancer. Intuitively, it seems to me that this notion of motivational substance literature, events causing one another should be related to the notion of causal influence just defined above. But I don’t yet see quite how to do that. The first problem below suggests a conjecture in this direction: Suppose and are random variables in a causal model such that for some pair of values and . Does this imply that exerts a causal influence on c-h bond, ? (Sum-over-paths for causal conditional probabilities?) I believe a kind of sum-over-paths formulation of causal conditional probabilities is possible, but haven’t worked out details.
The idea is for adolescent use a review of the, as follows (the details may be quite wrong, but I believe something along these lines should work). Supose and are single vertices (with corresponding random variables) in a causal model. Then I would like to show first that if is not an metathesis, ancestor of then , i.e., intervention does nothing. Second, if is an ancestor of marketing case, then may be obtained by summing over all directed paths from to in , and computing for each path a contribution to the sum which is a product of metathesis, conditional probabilities along the path. (Note that we may need to consider the same path multiple times in the sum, since the random variables along the path may take different values). We used causal models in our definition of causal conditional probabilities. But our informal definiton – imagine a hypothetical world in which it’s possible to force a variable to thesis paper take a particular value – didn’t obviously require the use of a causal model. Indeed, in a real-world randomized controlled experiment it may be that there is no underlying causal model. This leads me to wonder if there is some other way of formalizing the informal definition we’ve given? Another way of framing the last problem is that I’m concerned about the empirical basis for causal models. Metathesis. How should we go about write constructing such models?
Are they fundamental, representing true facts about the world, or are they modelling conveniences? (This is by no means a dichotomy.) It would be useful to work through many more examples, considering carefully the origin of the functions and of the auxiliary random variables . In this section we’ll develop a criterion that Pearl calls directional separation ( d-separation , for short). What d-separation does is let us inspect the graph of a causal model and conclude that a random variable in metathesis, the model can’t tell us anything about the value of another random variable in the model, or vice versa. To understand d-separation we’ll start with a simple case, and then work through increasingly complex cases, building up our intuition. I’ll conclude by giving a precise definition of d-separation, and by explaining how d-separation relates to the concept of conditional independence of random variables. Here’s the first simple causal model: Clearly, knowing can in write paper, general tell us something about in this kind of causal model, and so in this case and are not d-separated. We’ll use the c-h bond, term d-connected as a synonym for “not d-separated”, and so in this causal model and my dream playground essay are d-connected. By contrast, in the following causal model and don’t give us any information about each other, and so they are d-separated: A useful piece of terminology is to say that a vertex like the middle vertex in this model is a collider for the path from to , meaning a vertex at which both edges along the path are incoming.
What about the c-h bond, causal model: In this case, it is possible that knowing will tell us something about , because of their common ancestry. My Dream. It’s like the metathesis, way knowing the genome for one sibling can give us information about the genome of psychiatry, another sibling, since similarities between the genomes can be inferred from the common ancestry. We’ll call a vertex like the middle vertex in this model a fork for c-h bond, the path from to , meaning a vertex at which both edges are outgoing. Construct an explicit causal model demonstrating the playground, assertion of the last paragraph. For example, you may construct a causal model in metathesis, which and are joined by a fork, and psychiatry where is actually a function of . Suppose we have a path from to in a causal model. C-h Bond. Let be the number of colliders along the motivational substance review of the, path, and let be the metathesis, number of playground essay, forks along the path.
Show that can only c-h bond metathesis, take the values or , i.e., the number of forks and colliders is poem underlined in an, either the same or differs by at most one. We’ll say that a path (of any length) from to that contains a collider is c-h bond, a blocked path. By contrast, a path that contains no colliders is called an unblocked path. (Note that by the above exercise, an unblocked path must contain either one or no forks.) In general, we define and to be d-connected if there is an unblocked path between them. We define them to be d-separated if there is my dream playground, no such unblocked path. It’s worth noting that the concepts of d-separation and d-connectedness depend only on the graph topology and on which vertices and have been chosen.
In particular, they don’t depend on c-h bond metathesis, the nature of the random variables and , merely on the identity of the write thesis paper, corresponding vertices. As a result, you can determine d-separation or d-connectdness simply by inspecting the graph. C-h Bond Metathesis. This fact – that d-separation and d-connectdness are determined by the graph – also holds for the more sophisticated notions of d-separation and d-connectedness we develop below. With that said, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that the concept of d-separation is closely related to whether or not the random variables and are independent of one another. Write Thesis Art History. This is a connection you can (optionally) develop through the following exercises. C-h Bond Metathesis. I’ll state a much more general connection below. Suppose that and are d-separated. Show that and are independent random variables, i.e., that . Suppose we have two vertices which are d-connected in a graph . Explain how to construct a causal model on my dream essay, that graph such that the random variables and corresponding to c-h bond those two vertices are not independent. The last two exercises almost but don’t quite claim that random variables and in argumentative essay differences, a causal model are independent if and only if they are d-separated.
Why does this statement fail to be true? How can you modify the statement to make it true? So far, this is pretty simple stuff. It gets more complicated, however, when we extend the notion of d-separation to cases where we are conditioning on already knowing the value of metathesis, one or more random variables in the causal model. Consider, for argumentative, example, the graph: Now, if we know , then knowing doesn’t give us any additional information about , since by our original definition of c-h bond metathesis, a causal model is already a function of and some auxiliary random variables which are independent of . So it makes sense to say that blocks this path from to , even though in the unconditioned case this path would not have been considered blocked. We’ll also say that and are d-separated, given . It is helpful to give a name to vertices like the middle vertex in Figure A, i.e., to vertices with one ingoing and one outgoing edge.
We’ll call such vertices a traverse along the path from to . Using this language, the lesson of the above discussion is that if is in a traverse along a path from to , then the path is blocked. By contrast, consider this model: In this case, knowing will in general give us additional information about global marketing case study questions , even if we know . This is because while blocks one path from to there is another unblocked path from to . And so we say that and are d-connected, given . Another case similar to Figure A is the metathesis, model with a fork: Again, if we know , then knowing as well doesn’t give us any extra information about (or vice versa). So we’ll say that in questions, this case is blocking the path from to , even though in c-h bond metathesis, the unconditioned case this path would not have been considered blocked. Again, in this example and are d-separated, given . The lesson of this model is that if is thesis paper, located at a fork along a path from to , then the path is blocked. A subtlety arises when we consider a collider: In the c-h bond metathesis, unconditioned case this would have been considered a blocked path. And, naively, it seems as though this should still be the is a underlined essay, case: at first sight (at least according to my intuition) it doesn’t seem very likely that can give us any additional information about (or vice versa), even given that is known. Yet we should be cautious, because the argument we made for the graph in Figure A breaks down: we can’t say, as we did for Figure A, that is metathesis, a function of and some auxiliary independent random variables. In fact, we’re wise to be cautious because and really can tell us something extra about one another, given a knowledge of . This is a phenomenon which Pearl calls Berkson’s paradox . He gives the example of my dream, a graduate school in music which will admit a student (a possibility encoded in the value of c-h bond, ) if either they have high undergraduate grades (encoded in interviewing for adolescent review of the literature, ) or some other evidence that they are exceptionally gifted at music (encoded in ). It would not be surprising if these two attributes were anticorrelated amongst students in the program, e.g., students who were admitted on the basis of exceptional gifts would be more likely than otherwise to have low grades.
And so in this case knowledge of (exceptional gifts) would give us knowledge of (likely to have low grades), conditioned on knowledge of (they were accepted into the program). Another way of metathesis, seeing Berkson’s paradox is to construct an explicit causal model for the graph in Figure B. Write Art History. Consider, for example, a causal model in which and are independent random bits, or , chosen with equal probabilities . We suppose that , where is addition modulo . This causal model does, indeed, have the structure of Figure B. But given that we know the value , knowing the value of c-h bond, tells us everything about , since . As a result of this discussion, in the causal graph of Figure B we’ll say that unblocks the path from to psychiatry prize , even though in metathesis, the unconditioned case the path would have been considered blocked. And we’ll also say that in this causal graph and are d-connected, conditional on argumentative, . The immediate lesson from the graph of Figure B is that and c-h bond can tell us something about one another, given , if there is a path between and where the essay prize, only collider is at . C-h Bond. In fact, the same phenomenon can occur even in this graph: To see this, suppose we choose and as in the example just described above, i.e., independent random bits, or , chosen with equal probabilities . We will let the unlabelled vertex be . And, finally, we choose . Marketing Study. Then we see as before that can tell us something about metathesis , given that we know , because . The general intuition about graphs like that in is a poem in an essay, Figure C is that knowing allows us to infer something about the c-h bond, ancestors of , and so we must act as though those ancestors are known, too. As a result, in this case we say that unblocks the path from to , since has an is a in an essay, ancestor which is a collider on c-h bond, the path from to . And so in this case is d-connected to , given . Given the discussion of Figure C that we’ve just had, you might wonder why forks or traverses which are ancestors of interviewing for adolescent review literature, can’t block a path, for similar reasons? For instance, why don’t we consider and to c-h bond metathesis be d-separated, given , in psychiatry essay prize, the following graph: The reason, of course, is that it’s easy to construct examples where tells us something about in addition to what we already know from . And so we can’t consider and to be d-separated, given , in this example.
These examples motivate the following definition: Definition: Let , and be disjoint subsets of vertices in a causal model. Consider a path from a vertex in to a vertex in . We say the c-h bond metathesis, path is essay, blocked by if the path contains either: (a) a collider which is not an c-h bond, ancestor of essay, , or (b) a fork which is in , or (c) a traverse which is in . We say the c-h bond metathesis, path is unblocked if it is not blocked. We say that and motivational interviewing for adolescent use a are d-connected , given , if there is an unblocked path between some vertex in and some vertex in . and are d-separated , given , if they are not d-connected. Saying “ and are d-separated given ” is a bit of a mouthful, and so it’s helpful to have an abbreviated notation. We’ll use the abbreviation . Metathesis. Note that this notation includes the graph ; we’ll sometimes omit the essay prize, graph when the context is clear. We’ll write to denote unconditional d-separation. As an aside, Pearl uses a similar but slightly different notation for d-separation, namely . Unfortunately, while the symbol looks like a LaTeX symbol, it’s not, but is most easily produced using a rather dodgy LaTeX hack.
Instead of using that hack over and over again, I’ve adopted a more standard LaTeX notation. While I’m making asides, let me make a second: when I was first learning this material, I found the “d” for “directional” in d-separation and d-connected rather confusing. It suggested to me that the key thing was having a directed path from one vertex to the other, and that the complexities of c-h bond metathesis, colliders, forks, and is a poem so on metathesis, were a sideshow. Of course, they’re not, they’re central to the whole discussion. For this reason, when I was writing these notes I considered changing the terminology to i-separated and i-connected, for informationally-separated and informationally-connected. Ultimately I decided not to do this, but I thought mentioning the issue might be helpful, in part to reassure readers (like me) who thought the “d” seemed a little mysterious. Okay, that’s enough asides, let’s get back to the main track of discussion. We saw earlier that (unconditional) d-separation is closely connected to the independence of random variables.
It probably won’t surprise you to learn that conditional d-separation is closely connected to conditional independence of random variables. Motivational Interviewing For Adolescent Use A Review. Recall that two sets of random variables and are conditionally independent , given a third set of random variables , if . The following theorem shows that d-separation gives a criterion for when conditional independence occurs in a causal model: Theorem (graphical criterion for conditional independence): Let be a graph, and let , and be disjoint subsets of c-h bond, vertices in that graph. Then and are d-separated, given , if and only if for all causal models on marketing questions, the random variables corresponding to and are conditionally independent, given . (Update: Thanks to Rob Spekkens for pointing out an error in my original statement of metathesis, this theorem.) I won’t prove the theorem here.
However, it’s not especially difficult if you’ve followed the art history paper, discussion above, and is a good problem to work through: The concept of d-separation plays a central role in the causal calculus. My sense is that it should be possible to find a cleaner and more intuitive definition that substantially simplifies many proofs. It’d be good to spend some time trying to find such a definition. We’ve now got all the concepts we need to state the rules of the metathesis, causal calculus. There are three rules. The rules look complicated at first, although they’re easy to interviewing for adolescent use a review use once you get familiar with them.
For this reason I’ll start by explaining the intuition behind the first rule, and c-h bond how you should think about that rule. Having understood how to think about the essay differences, first rule it’s easy to get the hang of all three rules, and so after that I’ll just outright state all three rules. In what follows, we have a causal model on c-h bond, a graph , and write thesis are disjoint subsets of the variables in the causal model. Recall also that denotes the c-h bond, perturbed graph in which all edges pointing to from the parents of psychiatry, have been deleted. This is the graph which results when an experimenter intervenes to set the value of c-h bond metathesis, , overriding other causal influences on . Rule 1: When can we ignore observations: I’ll begin by stating the first rule in all its glory, but don’t worry if you don’t immediately grok the whole rule. Instead, just take a look, and try to global start getting your head around it. What we’ll do then is look at some simple special cases, which are easily understood, and gradually build up to an understanding of what the full rule is c-h bond metathesis, saying. Okay, so here’s the first rule of the causal calculus. What it tells us is that when , then we can ignore the psychiatry essay prize, observation of in computing the probability of , conditional on both and an intervention to set : To understand why this rule is true, and what it means, let’s start with a much simpler case. Let’s look at metathesis, what happens to the rule when there are no or variables in the mix.
In this case, our starting assumption simply becomes that is d-separated from in the original (unperturbed) graph . For Adolescent Substance Use A. There’s no need to worry about because there’s no variable whose value is being set by c-h bond intervention. In this circumstance we have , so is independent of . But the statement of the rule in this case is merely that , which is, indeed, equivalent to the standard definition of and being independent. In other words, the first rule is write thesis art history paper, simply a generalization of what it means for and to be independent. Metathesis. The full rule generalizes the thesis art history paper, notion of metathesis, independence in two ways: (1) by adding in an extra variable whose value has been determined by passive observation; and (2) by adding in an extra variable whose value has been set by intervention. Essay On Gender Differences. We’ll consider these two ways of generalizing separately in c-h bond metathesis, the next two paragraphs. We begin with generalization (1), i.e., there is no variable in psychiatry prize, the mix. In this case, our starting assumption becomes that is d-separated from , given , in the graph . By the graphical criterion for conditional independence discussed in c-h bond, the last section this means that is conditionally independent of , given , and so , which is exactly the statement of the rule.
And so the first rule can be viewed as a generalization of what it means for and to be independent, conditional on . Now let’s look at the other generalization, (2), in motivational interviewing substance use a review, which we’ve added an extra variable whose value has been set by c-h bond metathesis intervention, and where there is no variable in the mix. In this case, our starting assumption becomes that is d-separated from , given , in the perturbed graph . In this case, the graphical criterion for conditional indepenence tells us that is is a poem underlined in an essay, independent from , conditional on the value of being set by c-h bond metathesis experimental intervention, and so . Again, this is exactly the statement of the rule. The full rule, of course, merely combines both these generalizations in the obvious way. Is A Poem Essay. It is really just an explicit statement of the content of the c-h bond, graphical criterion for conditional independence, in for adolescent substance review literature, a context where has been observed, and the value of set by experimental intervention. The rules of the causal calculus: All three rules of the causal calculus follow a similar template to c-h bond metathesis the first rule: they provide ways of thesis paper, using facts about the c-h bond, causal structure (notably, d-separation) to make inferences about conditional causal probabilities. I’ll now state all three rules.
The intuition behind rules 2 and 3 won’t necessarily be entirely obvious, but after our discussion of rule 1 the remaining rules should at least appear plausible and comprehensible. Psychiatry Prize. I’ll have bit more to say about intuition below. As above, we have a causal model on a graph , and are disjoint subsets of the variables in the causal model. denotes the perturbed graph in which all edges pointing to from the parents of have been deleted. denotes the graph in which all edges pointing out from to the children of have been deleted. We will also freely use notations like to denote combinations of these operations. Rule 1: When can we ignore observations: Suppose . Then: Rule 2: When can we ignore the act of intervention: Suppose . Then: Rule 3: When can we ignore an c-h bond metathesis, intervention variable entirely: Let denote the thesis art history paper, set of nodes in which are not ancestors of c-h bond, . Suppose . Then: In a sense, all three rules are statements of conditional independence.
The first rule tells us when we can ignore an observation. The second rule tells us when we can ignore the act of psychiatry, intervention (although that doesn’t necessarily mean we can ignore the value of the variable being intervened with). And the third rule tells us when we can ignore an metathesis, intervention entirely, both the act of intervention, and the value of the variable being intervened with. I won’t prove rule 2 or rule 3 – this post is already quite long enough. (If I ever significantly revise the post I may include the proofs). The important thing to take away from poem underlined in an, these rules is that they give us conditions on c-h bond, the structure of causal models so that we know when we can ignore observations, acts of intervention, or even entire variables that have been intervened with. This is obviously a powerful set of tools to motivational interviewing for adolescent substance use a literature be working with in manipulating conditional causal probabilities! Indeed, according to c-h bond metathesis Pearl there’s even a sense in which this set of rules is complete , meaning that using these rules you can identify all causal effects in case questions, a causal model. Metathesis. I haven’t yet understood the proof of this result, or even exactly what it means, but thought I’d mention it. The proof is in papers by Shpitser and Pearl and Huang and Valtorta. If you’d like to poem underlined in an essay see the proofs of the rules of the calculus, you can either have a go at proving them yourself, or you can read the proof. Suppose the c-h bond, conditions of rules 1 and 2 hold.
Can we deduce that the conditions of rule 3 also hold? Using the case study, causal calculus to analyse the smoking-lung cancer connection. We’ll now use the causal calculus to c-h bond metathesis analyse the connection between smoking and write paper lung cancer. Earlier, I introduced a simple causal model of c-h bond, this connection: The great benefit of this model was that it included as special cases both the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer and the hypothesis that some hidden causal factor was responsible for both smoking and cancer. It turns out, unfortunately, that the psychiatry essay prize, causal calculus doesn’t help us analyse this model. I’ll explain why that’s the case below. However, rather than worrying about this, at this stage it’s more instructive to work through an example showing how the causal calculus can be helpful in analysing a similar but slightly modified causal model. So although this modification looks a little mysterious at first, for now I hope you’ll be willing to accept it as given. The way I’m going to modify the c-h bond, causal model is by playground essay introducing an extra variable, namely, whether someone has appreciable amounts of tar in their lungs or not: (By tar, I don’t mean “tar” literally, but rather all the material deposits found as a result of smoking.)
This causal model is a plausible modification of the original causal model. It is at least plausible to suppose that smoking causes tar in the lungs and c-h bond metathesis that those deposits in turn cause cancer. But if the hidden causal factor is genetic, as the tobacco companies argued was the motivational substance use a of the literature, case, then it seems highly unlikely that the c-h bond, genetic factor caused tar in the lungs, except by the indirect route of causing those people to in an smoke. C-h Bond. (I’ll come back to what happens if you refuse to accept this line of marketing questions, reasoning. For now, just go with it.) Our goal in this modified causal model is to c-h bond metathesis compute probabilities like . What we’ll show is that the causal calculus lets us compute this probability entirely in terms of probabilities like and other probabilities that don’t involve an marketing, intervention, i.e., that don’t involve . This means that we can determine without needing to know anything about the hidden factor. We won’t even need to know the metathesis, nature of the hidden factor. It also means that we can determine without needing to intervene to force someone to smoke or not smoke, i.e., to set the value for . In other words, the causal calculus lets us do something that seems almost miraculous: we can figure out the probability that someone would get cancer given that they are in the smoking group in a randomized controlled experiment, without needing to do the randomized controlled experiment. And this is true even though there may be a hidden causal factor underlying both smoking and cancer. Okay, so how do we compute ? The obvious first question to ask is whether we can apply rule 2 or rule 3 directly to the conditional causal probability . If rule 2 applies, for example, it would say that intervention doesn’t matter, and my dream so . Intuitively, this seems unlikely. We’d expect that intervention really can change the probability of cancer given smoking, because intervention would override the hidden causal factor.
If rule 3 applies, it would say that , i.e., that an intervention to force someone to smoke has no impact on whether they get cancer. This seems even more unlikely than rule 2 applying. However, as practice and a warm up, let’s work through the details of seeing whether rule 2 or rule 3 can be applied directly to . For rule 2 to apply we need . To check whether this is true, recall that is the graph with the edges pointing out from deleted: Obviously, is not d-separated from in c-h bond metathesis, this graph, since and have a common ancestor. This reflects the fact that the hidden causal factor indeed does influence both and . So we can’t apply rule 2.
What about rule 3? For this to global study apply we’d need . Recall that is the graph with the edges pointing toward deleted: Again, is not d-separated from , in c-h bond, this case because we have an unblocked path directly from to global marketing case questions . C-h Bond. This reflects our intuition that the value of can influence , even when the value of has been set by intervention. So we can’t apply rule 3. Okay, so we can’t apply the rules of the causal calculus directly to determine . Is there some indirect way we can determine this probability? An experienced probabilist would at global case study, this point instinctively wonder whether it would help to condition on the value of , writing: Of course, saying an experienced probabilist would instinctively do this isn’t quite the same as explaining why one should do this! However, it is at least a moderately obvious thing to do: the c-h bond, only extra information we potentially have in case study questions, the problem is , and so it’s certainly somewhat natural to c-h bond metathesis try to introduce that variable into motivational interviewing for adolescent substance review of the literature, the problem. As we shall see, this turns out to metathesis be a wise thing to essay on gender do.
I used without proof the c-h bond, equation . This should be intuitively plausible, but really requires proof. Prove that the equation is correct. To simplify the right-hand side of equation , we first note that we can apply rule 2 to the second term on the right-hand side, obtaining . To check this explicitly, note that the condition for essay, rule 2 to apply is metathesis, that . Argumentative Essay. We already saw the c-h bond metathesis, graph above, and, indeed, is d-separated from in that graph, since the essay, only path from to is blocked at . As a result, we have: At this point in the presentation, I’m going to speed the discussion up, telling you what rule of the calculus to apply at each step, but not going through the process of explicitly checking that the conditions of the metathesis, rule hold. (If you’re doing a close read, you may wish to on gender check the conditions, however.) The next thing we do is to apply rule 2 to the first term on c-h bond, the right-hand side of psychiatry essay prize, equation , obtaining . We then apply rule 3 to remove the , obtaining . Substituting back in gives us:
So this means that we’ve reduced the computation of to the computation of . This doesn’t seem terribly encouraging: we’ve merely substituted the computation of metathesis, one causal conditional probability for psychiatry essay prize, another. Still, let us continue plugging away, and see if we can make progress. The obvious first thing to try is to c-h bond apply rule 2 or rule 3 to simplify . Unfortunately, though not terribly surprisingly, neither rule applies. So what do we do? Well, in a repeat of our strategy above, we again condition on the other variable we have available to us, in this case : Now we’re cooking!
Rule 2 lets us simplify the first term to , while rule 3 lets us simplify the thesis art history, second term to , and so we have . To substitute this expression back into equation  it helps to change the summation index from to , since otherwise we would have a duplicate summation index. This gives us: This is the promised expression for (i.e., for probabilities like , assuming the causal model above) in c-h bond, terms of quantities which may be observed directly from experimental data, and which don’t require intervention to do a randomized, controlled experiment. Underlined In An Essay. Once is c-h bond metathesis, determined, we can compare it against . If is global study questions, larger than then we can conclude that smoking does, indeed, play a causal role in metathesis, cancer. Something that bugs me about the derivation of equation  is psychiatry prize, that I don’t really know how to “see through” the calculations. C-h Bond Metathesis. Yes, it all works out in the end, and it’s easy enough to substance review of the literature follow along. Yet that’s not the same as having a deep understanding. Too many basic questions remain unanswered: Why did we have to condition as we did in the calculation?
Was there some other way we could have proceeded? What would have happeed if we’d conditioned on c-h bond metathesis, the value of the write art history paper, hidden variable? (This is c-h bond, not obviously the wrong thing to do: maybe the hidden variable would ultimately drop out of the calculation). Why is it possible to compute causal probabilities in this model, but not (as we shall see) in the model without tar? Ideally, a deeper understanding would make the my dream playground essay, answers to c-h bond metathesis some or all of these questions much more obvious. Why is psychiatry prize, it so much easier to compute than in the model above? Is there some way we could have seen that this would be the case, without needing to c-h bond go through a detailed computation? Suppose we have a causal model , with a subset of vertices for which all conditional probabilities are known.
Is it possible to psychiatry essay prize give a simple characterization of for which subsets and of vertices it is possible to compute using just the conditional probabilities from ? Unfortunately, I don’t know what the experimentally observed probabilities are in the smoking-tar-cancer case. If anyone does, I’d be interested to know. In lieu of actual data, I’ll use some toy model data suggested by Pearl; the data is quite unrealistic, but nonetheless interesting as an illustration of the use of equation . C-h Bond. The toy model data is as follows: (1) 47.5 percent of the population are nonsmokers with no tar in differences, their lungs, and c-h bond 10 percent of these get cancer. (2) 2.5 percent are smokers with no tar, and 90 percent get cancer. (3) 2.5 percent are nonsmokers with tar, and 5 percent get cancer. (4) 47.5 percent are smokers with tar, and argumentative on gender 85 percent get cancer. In this case, we get:
By contrast, percent, and c-h bond so if this data was correct (obviously it’s not even close) it would show that smoking actually somewhat reduces a person’s chance of getting lung cancer. This is despite the fact that percent, and so a naive approach to causality based on correlations alone would suggest that smoking causes cancer. In fact, in this imagined world smoking might actually be useable as a preventative treatment for cancer! Obviously this isn’t truly the case, but it does illustrate the power of this method of analysis. Summing up the general lesson of the smoking-cancer example, suppose we have two competing hypotheses for the causal origin of marketing, some effect in metathesis, a system, A causes C or B causes C, say.
Then we should try to construct a realistic causal model which includes both hypotheses, and then use the causal calculus to attempt to distinguish the is a underlined, relative influence of the two causal factors, on the basis of experimentally accessible data. Incidentally, the kind of analysis of smoking we did above obviously wasn’t done back in the 1960s. I don’t actually know how causality was established over the protestations that correlation doesn’t impy causation. But it’s not difficult to think of ways you might have come up with truly convincing evidence that smoking was a causal factor. One way would have been to look at the incidence of lung cancer in populations where smoking had only metathesis, recently been introduced. Suppose, for example, that cigarettes had just been introduced into psychiatry, the (fictional) country of c-h bond, Nicotinia, and playground essay that this had been quickly followed by a rapid increase in rates of lung cancer. If this pattern was seen across many new markets then it would be very difficult to argue that lung cancer was being caused solely by some pre-existing factor in the population. Construct toy model data where smoking increases a person’s chance of getting lung cancer. Let’s leave this model of c-h bond metathesis, smoking and lung cancer, and come back to our original model of study, smoking and lung cancer: What would have happened if we’d tried to c-h bond use the causal calculus to analyse this model? I won’t go through all the details, but you can easily check that whatever rule you try to apply you quickly run into a dead end.
And so the causal calculus doesn’t seem to be any help in analysing this problem. This example illustrates some of the write thesis art history, limitations of the causal calculus. In order to compute we needed to assume a causal model with a particular structure: While this model is plausible, it is not beyond reproach. You could, for c-h bond metathesis, example, criticise it by review of the literature saying that it is not the presence of tar deposits in the lungs that causes cancer, but maybe some other factor, perhaps something that is currently unknown. This might lead us to consider a causal model with a revised structure: So we could try instead to use the causal calculus to analyse this new model. I haven’t gone through this exercise, but I strongly suspect that doing so we wouldn’t be able to use the rules of the c-h bond, causal calculus to compute the argumentative essay, relevant probabilities. The intuition behind this suspicion is that we can imagine a world in metathesis, which the tar may be a spurious side-effect of smoking that is in fact entirely unrelated to lung cancer. What causes lung cancer is really an entirely different mechanism, but we couldn’t distinguish the two from the statistics alone.
The point of this isn’t to say that the causal calculus is useless. It’s remarkable that we can plausibly get information about the art history, outcome of a randomized controlled experiment without actually doing anything like that experiment. But there are limitations. To get that information we needed to make some presumptions about the causal structure in the system. Those presumptions are plausible, but not logically inevitable. If someone questions the presumptions then it may be necessary to metathesis revise the model, perhaps adopting a more sophisticated causal model. One can then use the causal calculus to motivational interviewing for adolescent substance review literature attempt to analyse that more sophisticated model, but we are not guaranteed success. It would be interesting to understand systematically when this will be possible and when it will not be. The following problems start to c-h bond get at motivational substance use a review, some of the issues involved. Is it possible to make a more precise statement than “the causal calculus doesn’t seem to be any help” for the original smoking-cancer model? Given a probability distribution over c-h bond, some random variables, it would be useful to my dream have a classification theorem describing all the causal models in which those random variables could appear.
Extending the last problem, it’d be good to have an algorithm to answer questions like: in the space of all possible causal models consistent with a given set of observed probabilities, what can we say about the possible causal probabilities? It would also be useful to be able to metathesis input to poem in an essay the algorithm some constraints on the causal models, representing knowledge we’re already sure of. In real-world experiments there are many practical issues that must be addressed to design a realiable randomized, controlled experiment. These issues include selection bias, blinding, and many others. There is an c-h bond metathesis, entire field of experimental design devoted to addressing such issues. By comparison, my description of causal inference ignores many of these practical issues. Can we integrate the best thinking on is a underlined, experimental design with ideas such as causal conditional probabilities and the causal calculus? From a pedagogical point of view, I wonder if it might have been better to work fully through the smoking-cancer example before getting to the abstract statement of the c-h bond, rules of the causal calculus. Argumentative Essay. Those rules can all be explained and motivated quite nicely in the context of the smoking-cancer example, and that may help in understanding. I’ve described just a tiny fraction of the c-h bond, work on causality that is now going on.
My impression as an admittedly non-expert outsider to the field is that this is an exceptionally fertile field which is developing rapidly and giving rise to many fascinating applications. Over the global marketing case, next few decades I expect the theory of causality will mature, and be integrated into the foundations of disciplines ranging from economics to medicine to social policy. Causal discovery: One question I’d like to c-h bond metathesis understand better is how to discover causal structures inside existing data sets. After all, human beings do a pretty good (though far from perfect) job at figuring out causal models from their observation of the world. I’d like to better understand how to use computers to automatically discover such causal models. I understand that there is already quite a literature on the automated discovery of causal models, but I haven’t yet looked in much depth at that literature. I may come back to it in a future post. I’m particularly fascinated by the idea of extracting causal models from poem in an essay, very large unstructured data sets. The KnowItAll group at the University of Washington (see Oren Etzioni on Google Plus) have done fascinating work on a related but (probably) easier problem, the problem of open information extraction. This means taking an unstructured information source (like the web), and c-h bond using it to extract facts about the real world. Prize. For instance, using the metathesis, web one would like computers to be able to psychiatry learn facts like “Barack Obama is c-h bond metathesis, President of the United States”, without needing a human to is a poem underlined in an feed it that information.
One of the things that makes this task challenging is all the misleading and difficult-to-understand information out on metathesis, the web. For instance, there are also webpages saying “George Bush is differences, President of the United States”, which was probably true at the time the pages were written, but which is metathesis, now misleading. We can find webpages which state things like “[Let’s imagine] Steve Jobs is psychiatry essay prize, President of the United States“; it’s a difficult task for c-h bond metathesis, an unsupervised algorithm to figure out how to interpret that “Let’s imagine”. What the is a poem in an, KnowItAll team have done is made progress on figuring out how to learn facts in c-h bond, such a rich but uncontrolled environment. What I’m wondering is whether such techniques can be adapted to thesis art history paper extract causal models from data?
It’d be fascinating if so, because of c-h bond metathesis, course humans don’t just reason with facts, they also reason with (informal) causal models that relate those facts. Perhaps causal models or a similar concept may be a good way of interviewing substance of the literature, representing some crucial part of our knowledge of the world. What systematic causal fallacies do human beings suffer from? We certainly often make mistakes in metathesis, the causal models we extract from is a poem underlined in an, our observations of the world – one example is that we often do assume that correlation implies causation, even when that’s not true – and it’d be nice to understand what systematic biases we have. C-h Bond. Humans aren’t just good with facts and causal models. Write Art History. We’re also really good at juggling multiple causal models, testing them against one another, finding problems and inconsistencies, and making adjustments and integrating the results of metathesis, those models, even when the results conflict. In essence, we have a (working, imperfect) theory of how to deal with causal models.
Can we teach machines to do this kind of integration of causal models? We know that in our world the sun rising causes the rooster to crow, but it’s possible to imagine a world in which it is the rooster crowing that causes the sun to rise. This could be achieved in a suitably designed virtual world, for example. The reason we believe the first model is correct in our world is not intrinsic to the data we have on roosters and sunrise, but rather depends on psychiatry essay, a much more complex network of background knowledge. For instance, given what we know about metathesis roosters and the sun we can easily come up with plausible causal mechanisms (solar photons impinging on the rooster’s eye, say) by which the sun could cause the rooster to crow. There do not seem to be any similarly plausible causal models in the other direction.
How do we determine what makes a particular causal model plausible or not? How do we determine the class of is a underlined essay, plausible causal models for a given phenomenon? Can we make this kind of judgement automatically? (This is all closely related to c-h bond metathesis the last problem). Continuous-time causality: A peculiarity in my post is my dream playground essay, that even though we’re talking about causality, and time is presumably important, I’ve avoided any explicit mention of time. C-h Bond. Of course, it’s implicitly there: if I’d been a little more precise in specifying my models they’d no doubt be conditioned on events like “smoked at motivational interviewing substance review of the literature, least a pack a day for 10 or more years”.
Of course, this way of putting time into the picture is metathesis, rather coarse-grained. In a lot of practical situations we’re interested in understanding causality in a much more temporally fine-grained way. Argumentative Essay. To explain what I mean, consider a simple model of the relationship between what we eat and our insulin levels: This model represents the fact that what we eat determines our insulin levels, and c-h bond our insulin levels in turn play a part in determining how hungry we feel, and thus what we eat. But as a model, it’s quite inadequate.
In fact, there’s a much more complex feedback relationship going on, a constant back-and-forth between what we eat at art history paper, any given time, and our insulin levels. Ideally, this wouldn’t be represented by c-h bond metathesis a few discrete events, but rather by a causal model that reflects the continual feedback between these possibilities. What I’d like to see developed is psychiatry, a theory of continuous-time causal models, which can address this sort of issue. It would also be useful to extend the calculus to continuous spaces of events. So far as I know, at present the causal calculus doesn’t work with these kinds of ideas. Can we formulate theories like electromagnetism, general relativity and c-h bond metathesis quantum mechanics within the essay, framework of the metathesis, causal calculus (or some generalization)? Do we learn anything by doing so? Other notions of causality: A point I’ve glossed over in the post is how the notion of essay prize, causal influence we’ve been studying relates to other notions of causality. The notion we’ve been exploring is based on the notion of causality that is metathesis, established by a (hopefully well-designed!) randomized controlled experiment.
To understand what that means, think of what it would mean if we used such an experiment to for adolescent use a establish that smoking does, indeed, cause cancer. All this means is that in the population being studied , forcing someone to c-h bond smoke will increase their chance of essay prize, getting cancer. Now, for the practical matter of c-h bond, setting public health policy, that’s obviously a pretty important notion of causality. Argumentative Essay On Gender Differences. But nothing says that we won’t tomorrow discover some population of people where no such causal influence is found. C-h Bond. Or perhaps we’ll find a population where smoking actively helps prevent cancer. My Dream. Both these are entirely possible.
What’s going on is that while our notion of causality is useful for some purposes, it doesn’t necessarily say anything about the metathesis, details of an underlying causal mechanism, and it doesn’t tell us how the review literature, results will apply to other populations. In other words, while it’s a useful and important notion of causality, it’s not the only way of thinking about metathesis causality. My Dream Playground Essay. Something I’d like to do is to understand better what other notions of causality are useful, and how the c-h bond, intervention-based approach we’ve been exploring relates to global those other approaches. Thanks to Jen Dodd, Rob Dodd, and Rob Spekkens for many discussions about c-h bond metathesis causality. Paper. Especial thanks to Rob Spekkens for pointing me toward the epilogue of Pearl’s book, which is what got me hooked on causality! Principal sources and further reading. A readable and stimulating overview of metathesis, causal inference is the epilogue to Judea Pearl’s book. The epilogue, in turn, is based on essay, a survey lecture by Pearl on c-h bond, causal inference.
I highly recommend getting a hold of the book and reading the epilogue; if you cannot do that, I suggest looking over the survey lecture. A draft copy of the first edition of the entire book is available on Pearl’s website. Unfortunately, the draft does not include the full text of the epilogue, only the survey lecture. Prize. The lecture is still good, though, so you should look at it if you don’t have access to the full text of the epilogue. I’ve also been told good things about the book on causality by Spirtes, Glymour and Scheines, but haven’t yet had a chance to c-h bond metathesis have a close look at it. An unfortunate aspect of the current post is that it gives the impression that the is a poem underlined in an essay, theory of causal inference is metathesis, entirely Judea Pearl’s creation. For Adolescent Substance Use A Of The. Of course that’s far from the c-h bond metathesis, case, a fact which is quite evident from both Pearl’s book, and the Spirtes-Glymour-Scheines book.
However, the poem essay, particular facets I’ve chosen to focus on are due principally to Pearl and his collaborators: most of the current post is based on chapter 3 and chapter 1 of Pearl’s book, as well as a 1994 paper by Pearl, which established many of the metathesis, key ideas of the causal calculus. Finally, for an enjoyable and informative discussion of some of the challenges involved in understanding causal inference I recommend Jonah Lehrer’s recent article in Wired . Interested in more? Please subscribe to this blog, or follow me on Twitter. You may also enjoy reading my new book about open science, Reinventing Discovery. Do you think there’d be a way to argumentative essay differences interpret causal structure via geometry, much like we use geometry to express correlation and other patterns in metathesis, data mining. The geometry might have to be something that encodes causality – maybe a manifold with negative signature ? @Suresh – Fascinating idea! No idea if it’s possible, though, the differences, thought never crossed my mind. I guess I think of causal models as having an inherent directionality, due to c-h bond the dag structure, while most geometries don’t have the same kind of directionality. But maybe there’s some trick to get around that. There’s been plenty of work on is a, the geometry of curved exponential families, and their relation to inference in graphical models. C-h Bond Metathesis. See, as a start, e.g.
Bernd Sturmfels and Lior Pachter also have a pretty good book that touches on a lot of this — Yes, I’m aware of that work. But the geometry there is a geometry in the parameter space. I don’t think it can be used to capture this kind of causality (at least at first glance) I came across this as I was interested in oral thrush. The NHS guidance (quite reasonably) states that a high proportion of on gender differences, AIDS patients have thrush. Thrush has many causes and is correlated with use of inhaled steroids. Metathesis. I read the article without a second thought – it seemed correct and balanced. But commenters assumed that thrush had a high probably of being caused by aids and that it was highly irresponsible not to say it could also be caused by steroids. This is a typical example of essay, Bayes – the a priori chance of having AIDS is lower (I think) than being on metathesis, Oral steroids.
I don’t know the answer. I don’t think the poem essay, human race can eveolve genetically to process probabilities correctly, so it has to metathesis be education at essay, an early age! That’s another nice example, and of a type that I suspect often infects policy-making and public discussion. 1. If there’s an alternative . path from c-h bond, smoking to lung cancer it may be possible to put bounds on P(cancer|dio(smoking)) even if you can’t compute it exactly. 2. Similar graphs can be constructed for quantum amplitudes instead of (and in addition to) probabilities. It might be interesting to analyse EPR and psychiatry prize other experiments in this way, especially from the c-h bond metathesis, point of psychiatry essay, view of hidden variable models of QM.
Thanks for this very informative post. Let me just make a few comments about your “physics” question: “Can we formulate theories like electromagnetism, general relativity and quantum mechanics within the framework of the causal calculus (or some generalization)? Do we learn anything by doing so?” I have been working on formulating quantum theory in a Bayesian network language, which is an obvious precursor to developing a causal calculus for it. Even that problem is not so simple, given that the standard formalism has an c-h bond, assumed causal structure built into it, which we need to get rid of before we start. Art History Paper. My recent papers with Rob Spekkens are part of an attempt to metathesis do that.
One lesson that I have learned from this is that we need to get away from the usual “initial state+dynamics” way of looking at physics in order to essay fit it into this framework. Any correlations that exist in the initial state have to be modelled explicitly in the causal network because it assumes that the root vertices are independent. Finally, let me just mention that you might be able to c-h bond get away with a simpler structure for modelling causality in deterministic theories like electromagnetism. Directed acyclic graphs are needed in general in order to model non-Markovian causal processes, but deterministic theories (and unitary evolution in quantum theory) are necessarily Markovian. Therefore, you should be able to get away with just using a poset to model causality in these cases, the corresponding DAG being just the playground, Hasse diagram of the poset. C-h Bond Metathesis. It is much easier to deal with continuous posets than continuous generalizations of graphs, so this could be a good first step.
By the way, this explains why Raphael Sorkin et. al. are able to differences get away with just using posets in the causal set approach to quantum gravity, because they only care about metathesis global unitary evolution. Thanks for the pointer to your work, Matt, it sounds fascinating. Although I’ve chatted with Rob about this, I didn’t realize that you were trying to formulate quantum theory in terms of Bayesian networks. (He may well have mentioned it, but I perhaps didn’t understand what he was saying – I hadn’t read Pearl at all at that time – and so forgot.) Nice exposition! Perhaps some notion of “latent surprise” could be relevant.
Adapting from the argumentative essay, Wired article you cite, imagine that a candidate drug’s operation has two plausible causal models. The first and most plausible model is simple. It is c-h bond metathesis, used during drug development. My Dream Essay. The second-most plausible model is complex (but still plausible if one analyzes it). If that second-most plausible causal model is c-h bond, very different from the first, that could be a “latent surprise” for researchers – a warning that, if their understanding of the drug’s operation changes somewhat, the clinical effects could be profound. In general, if the global case, most plausible few models are close (in the metric of plausibility) yet very different (in the metric space of c-h bond, causal model similarity), this is a warning of big latent surprises if our understanding shifts a bit. Suppose that, as you speculate, we could automatically “determine the class of plausible causal models for a given phenomenon”. We might then also be able to on gender differences scan automatically for latent surprises in c-h bond metathesis, important systems: scientific, social, financial, policy, and so forth. You mentioned the following: “Obviously, it’d make no sense to have loops in prize, the graph: We can’t have causing causing causing ! At least, not without a time machine.” Loops in causality DAG can be created without time machines as follows. 1. In some distant origin that is not in the history of measurements, A caused B;
4. so on and so forth. 5. C-h Bond. Over time, A, B, and C have caused other variables due to unknown reasons. So, to the observer, A caused B, which caused C, which (in turn) caused A. This situation could happen in Human History due to essay lapses in measurement and in Astronomy because the lifetime of the c-h bond, observed (universe) is much longer than the lifetime of the observer (humans). Thanks for essay differences, this interesting post, which provides a nice concise introduction to causal calculus. C-h Bond. There is one interesting aspect to this whole chain of reasoning based on randomized controlled trials as the basis of empirical causality that I haven’t seen discussed yet: a controlled trial assumes that the experimenter is an agent possessing free will, and is thus outside of any causal model. Essay. There is c-h bond, a recent tendency in the scientific community (see this article for write thesis paper, example, and my comments on it) to claim that free will does not exist, and that human behavior is governed entirely by molecular processes (and thus ultimately quantum physics). With that assumption, whatever an experimenter does is merely one more observable in a stochastic network, randomized controlled trials disappear, and causal calculus disappears as well. We arrive at the conclusion that the c-h bond, only scientific method to my dream essay attribute causality relies on the existence of free will as a source of “obvious” causality. But then, as you show, there are causal models from which the experimenter’s intervention can be eliminated. We can thus draw conclusions about causality without assuming the “obvious” source of c-h bond, free will.
I wonder if it is possible to state under which conditions a causal model permits this elimination. Rules 2 and 3 are about individual variables, but is there a rule that applies to a complete graph? Thanks for essay, this. I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about Pearl’s book lately and c-h bond metathesis this is by far the most accessible introduction to the material that I have come across. One quick correction. Psychiatry. Close to the end of your discussion of rule 1 (2 paragraphs before the heading: “the rules of the c-h bond metathesis, causal calculus”), you give the equation:
Presumably you mean: Thanks, I’ve corrected it! “Business Week recently ran an spoof article pointing out some amusing examples of the dangers of inferring correlation from causation.” Probably you meant the other way around: “amusing examples of the dangers of inferring causation from in an, correlation”? I have enjoyed a lot reading this. I am slightly confused about the wording of the following sentence: where f_j is a function, and Y_j is a collection of random variables such that: (a) the Y_j,. are independent of one another for different values of j; and c-h bond metathesis (b) for each j, Y_j,. is psychiatry, independent of metathesis, all variables X_k, except when X_k is X_j itself, or a descendant of X_j. The intuition is interviewing for adolescent substance use a review of the, that the are a collection of auxiliary random variables which inject some extra randomness into X_j (and, through X_j, its descendants), but which are otherwise independent of the variables in the causal model.
What you mean by metathesis that is that for write, instance in the diagram above the c-h bond metathesis, paragraph Y_4,i is not independent of X_3 and my dream playground essay X_2? No the Y_4,i’s are independent of X_3 and X_2. The only way this could fail is if condition (b) is met. That condition tells us that Y_4,i may not be independent of X_k when X_k is X_4 or a descendant. In that particular diagram, X_4 has no descendants, so we merely have Y_4,i not a descendant of X_4. Thanks for writing this up. It was very helpful! Regarding eq , you commented that it wasn’t transparent. If I’m not mistake, you can reduce this to.
which is much more transparent. How do you do this? My mistake. I thought I had marginalized out the x’, but didn’t. one famous place case study where “hidden causality” is notoriously, even fiendishly difficult to isolate and shows the extreme subtlety involved: local hidden variable theories for c-h bond, quantum mechanics. which recently have been brought back from the dead (or maybe semi zombie state) by anderson/brady in a soliton model. more thoughts on that here. it has an aura of unorthodoxy but lets not forget that the greats have always been enamored with the idea. Global Study Questions. einstein, schroedinger, ‘t hooft, etcetera. part of the c-h bond, difficulty in QM is the idea of case study, counterintuitive variables that might actually cause the experiment apparatus to “measure” or “not measure” (or “click” vs “not click/silent”). this has been called a “conspiracy” for decades. not sure who invented that description.
Goes into causal detection based upon ‘prediction when variable A has been removed’, and why correlation sometimes makes causal detection worse, not better. Imply causation? I think this has been an issue for some time now because, frankly, causality cannot be proven. What science engages in is probablistic hypothetical inductive empiricism – in short, we can never know causality no matter how much some scientists would like you to metathesis believe. Science today is merely a refined scholasticism, that just so happened to plague humanity for nearly 2000 years. Not a single person can or has or will prove (analytically) universal causality of Being – to underlined put it in easier terms, someone prove to me gravity will exist next Tuesday… Interesting article overall, but I disagree with this statement: We can’t have X causing Y causing Z causing Y! In fact, this is metathesis, called positive feedback loop and is common in nature. You will find a lot of examples in wikipedia, none of them needs a time machine #128521; I noticed I incorrectly quoted you above, but the point is, loops in causal diagrams are common.
The labels in global case study, the diagrams aren’t just for c-h bond metathesis, broad classes of phenomena, they’re labels for random variables. A reasonable informal way of thinking is that this means you should think of the nodes as referring to specific events. Suppose you have a feedback loop: Eating chocolate = causes Mark to gain weight = reduced tolerance for glucose = Eating chocolate (etc). The second “Eating chocolate” is actually a later event, which would be associated with a separate random variable, and would have a separate node in a causal diagram. Incidentally, that informal way of thinking – nodes as specific events in time – isn’t the full story.
You really need to understand the technical definition of a random variable. Art History Paper. But this informal approach conveys the gist of what’s going on. In , I’m confused how to c-h bond expand the is a underlined essay, right side; I don’t see where I can get the c-h bond, values for pa(Xj). I’m trying to expand the is a poem essay, basic cancer-smoking-hidden model in terms of basic probabilities, and I can only get as far as P(gets cancer | do(smokes)) = P(gets cancer, smokes) / P(smokes | pa(Smoke)). (My end goal is to see if I can use  to expand the cancer-smoking-tar-hidden model and obtain the same result that you did, but without using the causal calculus.) pa(.) is just used to denote the parents of a node (or collection of nodes) in the causal graph. I had previously heard one of Pearl’s talks and I took a course in graphical models, but I really understood the Pearl’s ideas better after reading your post. C-h Bond. Thanks. Hello, thanks for this nice explanation of Pearl’s al. theory. But there is something I can’t grasp in spite of reading Pearl’s lecture slides or some parts of his papers. When simplifying equation , you say (as Pearl does) that we can apply rule 2 to find : p(z|do(x)) = p(z|x) But rule 2 is much more complex than this.
It tells about x,y,z and w. How can you make disappear y and poem in an essay w in rule 2 ? Is it because w is metathesis, unobserved ? Is it because pa(y) = x and we can use another relation ? Thanks for your help. Okay, after many readings , I guess I’m now able to answer to myself. In the 1992 paper, Pearl derives three properties from  formula. p(z|do(x)) = p(z|x) iff z_|_ pa(x) | x. which is the essay, case in the example graph.
Though Pearl says that rule 2 is equivalent to this property, I think the latter is much more powerful ! I am trying to understand your eq. ; when I set up the calculations in a spreadsheet table, I get the following result, namely no difference between P(cancer) and P(cancer|do(smoking)), which is what I intuitively expected. Can you tell me where I went wrong? no tar no smoke 0.1 0.5 0.475 0.95 0.0475. no tar smoke 0.9 0.5 0.025 0.05 0.0225. tar no smoke 0.05 0.5 0.025 0.05 0.00125. tar smoke 0.85 0.5 0.475 0.95 0.40375. Regarding the metathesis, application of Simpson’s Paradox to the Civil Rights Act and your mention of application to gender bias I would ask, how far can one go in “slicing and dicing”? How often is thesis paper, this an exercise in c-h bond metathesis, merely seeking an outcome that supports one’s pre-existing bias? For instance, can I go further and split the “north” into east and west of the Mississippi? Suppose this how the the votes came out with this further split (recall we had DemNorth(145/154), RepNorth(138/162)):
North-East: Dem(129/134 .966) North-West: Dem(16/20 = .8) Rep(109/132 .825) Now we have three regions, NorthEast, NorthWest, and South and motivational interviewing for adolescent review the republican % was higher in two out of three. Given the Rep(0/10) in the south that can’t be sliced in any manner to seek a favorable outcome for a rep analyst, but you get my point. I just quickly jotted down a few trials to come up with this example which is not surprising given the initial split into north-south is metathesis, just a first iteration that demonstrates this is possible. But again I ask, where does the slicing and dicing stop in motivational substance use a of the literature, such an analysis? Usually with these sorts of political and judicial analyses, those things that involve human motivations, it usually stops where the desired outcome is achieved – and the best part is metathesis, – one can claim it was scientific and marketing case mathematical so is indisputable! The analyst can say under oath and with a straight face,”I lay the numbers before you and the numbers don’t lie.” But just what do the numbers tell us? Your threshold “being Republican, rather than Democrat, was an important factor in causing someone to vote for the Civil Rights Act” is metathesis, also subjective – as it must be in dealing with human motivations, e.g. what is ‘important’?, what is write paper, ‘causing’? One could note the 94Dem/10Rep representation from the south, and analyzing the c-h bond, majority of thesis, southern voter’s motivations at metathesis, that time conclude that a major reason for in an, the big Dem majority in that region was in part caused by c-h bond metathesis the voter’s view that based on platforms and global marketing study reputation, being Rep, the losing challenger was most likely in favor of the Civil Rights Act.
In see that in my previous post on “slicing and dicing” somehow things got a bit garbled between what I typed in and what displayed. One could derive the details given what did display but here is what I intended regarding the East-West split of the North in the Civil Rights vote split: North-West Dem(16/20)=.80 Rep(109/132),825. I’ve applied Simpson’s Paradox to the North vote split. This is hypothetical, but one could gerrymander a region to demonstrate or refute pretty much whatever one wanted. Sorry I’m a little late to the party… but I’ve been busy doing a lot of work in what I’m calling a “science of conceptual systems” where a conceptual system is a set of interrelated concepts (theories, models, mental models, policies, strategic plans, etc.). My research shows how we can use these kinds of insights to create theories and policies that are more likely to be effective in practical application.
You can access some of my writings at: http://projectfast.org/category/research/articles/ There, i analyze the metathesis, evolution of my dream playground, a theory of physics from ancient times through the scientific revolution. By focusing on causal relationships, and concatenated relationships between nodes, we gain rather useful insights into how to create more effective theories and c-h bond metathesis policies. This is important because, within the write thesis art history, social sciences, our current theories fail far more often than they succeed. C-h Bond Metathesis. imagine what we might be able to accomplish if our economic policies worked twice as well as they do? What about theories of management and psychology? Double the effectiveness and watch what happens to organizational and mental health! The immediate lesson from the graph of Figure B is that and can tell us something.
about one another, given , if there is is a in an essay, a path between and where the only collider. is at . In fact, the same phenomenon can occur even in this graph: In the example you gave about the c-h bond, music academy, and underlined essay Berkson’s paradox, there should be another node in the graph: that X gives information about c-h bond metathesis Y if and only if X and Y have some other (external) connection. The other connection in this case is: our intuition that music prodigies are usually disinterested in their other studies. So, you cannot proceed to the principle that when X – Z – Y, X gives information about Y, i.e. that the my dream playground, path is unblocked. The path is only unblocked due to the presence of another path (our personal guess that musical prodigies neglect their other studies). The immediate lesson from the graph of c-h bond, Figure B is that and essay can tell us something.
about one another, given , if there is a path between and where the only collider. is at . In fact, the same phenomenon can occur even in this graph: In the c-h bond metathesis, example you gave about the questions, music academy, and Berkson’s paradox, there should be another node in the graph: X gives information about Y if and only if X and Y have some other (external) connection. The other connection in this case is: our intuitive guess that music prodigies are usually disinterested in their other studies. So, you cannot proceed to c-h bond metathesis the principle that when X – Z Z – Y is blocked.
High Quality Custom Essay Writing Service -
Sigma Bond Metathesis (CH activation) and Metathesis - Chemistry
43 Resume Tips That Will Help You Get Hired. When you haven’t updated your resume in a while, it can be hard to know where to start. What experiences and accomplishments should you include for c-h bond metathesis the jobs you’ve got your eye on? What new resume rules and motivational interviewing review of the, trends should you be following? And seriously, one page or two? Well, search no more: We’ve compiled all the resume advice you need into one place.
Read on metathesis for tips and tricks that’ll make sure you craft a winning resume—and help you land a job. Your resume should not have every work experience you’ve ever had listed on write thesis art history it. Think of your resume not as a comprehensive list of your career history, but as a marketing document selling you as the perfect person for the job. Metathesis! For each resume you send out, you’ll want to highlight only the accomplishments and skills that are most relevant to poem underlined essay the job at hand (even if that means you don’t include all of your experience). C-h Bond! Job search expert Lily Zhang explains more about what it means to tailor your resume here . 2. Paper! But Keep a Master List of All Jobs. Since you’ll want to be swapping different information in and out c-h bond metathesis, depending on the job you’re applying to, keep a resume master list on your computer where you keep any information you’ve ever included on global case a resume: old positions, bullet points tailored for different applications, special projects that only sometimes make sense to include. Then, when you’re crafting each resume, it’s just a matter of cutting and metathesis, pasting relevant information together.
Think of write thesis this as your brag file . 3. Put the c-h bond Best Stuff “Above the Fold” In marketing speak, “above the fold” refers to what you see on the front half of a folded newspaper (or, in the digital age, before you scroll down on a website), but basically it’s your first impression of a document. In resume speak, it means you should make sure your best experiences and accomplishments are visible on the top third of your resume. This top section is what the hiring manager is going to see first—and what will serve as a hook for someone to keep on on gender reading. So focus on putting your best, most relevant experiences first—and then check out these five other marketing tricks to get your resume noticed . According to Zhang , the only occasion when an c-h bond metathesis objective section makes sense is when you’re making a huge career change and need to explain from the get-go why your experience doesn’t match up with the position you’re applying to. In every other case? Consider whether a summary statement would be right for you —or just nix it altogether to save space and focus on making the rest of your resume stellar. There are lots of different ways to organize the information on your resume, but the essay good old reverse chronological (where your most recent experience is listed first) is still your best bet. C-h Bond Metathesis! Unless it’s absolutely necessary in your situation, skip the skills-based resume—hiring managers might wonder what you’re hiding. The two- (or more!) page resume is a hotly debated topic , but the bottom line is this—you want the argumentative differences information here to be concise, and making yourself keep it to one page is c-h bond metathesis, a good way to essay on gender differences force yourself to do this.
If you truly have enough relevant and important experience, training, and c-h bond metathesis, credentials to showcase on more than one page of your resume, then go for marketing case study questions it. C-h Bond! But if you can tell the same story in my dream, less space? Do. If you’re struggling, check out these tips for cutting your content down , or work with a designer to see how you can organize your resume to fit more in less space. C-h Bond Metathesis! Can’t figure out how to tell your whole story on one page, or want to playground be able to include some visual examples of your work? Instead of trying to metathesis have your resume cover everything, cover the most important details on that document, and argumentative, then include a link to c-h bond your personal website , where you can dive more into what makes you the ideal candidate. We’ll talk about getting creative in order to stand out in a minute. But the most basic principle of good resume formatting and design?
Keep it simple. Use a basic but modern font, like Helvetica, Arial, or Century Gothic. Make your resume easy on essay prize hiring managers’ eyes by using a font size between 10 and 12 and leaving a healthy amount of white space on the page. C-h Bond Metathesis! You can use a different font or typeface for motivational substance literature your name, your resume headers, and the companies for which you’ve worked, but keep it simple and keep it consistent. Your main focus here should be on readability for the hiring manager. C-h Bond! That being said, you should feel free to… Really want your resume stand out from the essay sea of Times New Roman? Yes, creative resumes—like infographics, videos, or presentations—or resumes with icons or graphics can set you apart, but you should use them thoughtfully. If you’re applying through an ATS, keep to c-h bond metathesis the standard formatting without any bells and whistles so the computer can read it effectively. Argumentative! If you’re applying to a more traditional company, don’t get too crazy, but feel free to add some tasteful design elements or a little color to make it pop.
No matter what, don’t do it unless you’re willing to put in the time, creativity, and design work to make it awesome. 10. Make Your Contact Info Prominent. You don’t need to include your address on your resume anymore (really!), but you do need to make sure to include a phone number and professional email address (not your work address!) as well as other places the hiring manager can find you on the web, like your LinkedIn profile and Twitter handle. (Implicit in this is that you keep these social media profiles suitable for prospective employers.) You’ve heard before that hiring managers don’t spend a lot of time on each individual resume. So help them get as much information as possible, in as little time as possible.
These 12 small formatting changes will make a huge difference. Know that design skills aren’t your strong suit but want your resume to look stunning? There’s no shame in getting help, so consider working with a professional resume designer. This is arguably the most important document of c-h bond your job search, so it’s worth getting it exactly right! 13. Keep it Recent, Keep it Relevant. As a rule, you should only show the most recent 10-15 years of your career history and prize, only include the experience relevant to c-h bond the positions to which you are applying. My Dream Playground Essay! And remember to c-h bond allocate real estate on is a underlined in an essay your resume according to importance. If there’s a choice between including one more college internship or going into more detail about your current role, always choose the metathesis latter (unless a previous job was more relevant to the one you’re applying to). 14. In An! No Relevant Experience?
No Worries! Don’t panic if you don’t have any experience that fits the bill. Instead, Zhang explains , focus your resume on your relevant and transferrable skills along with any related side or academic projects, and then make sure to pair it with a strong cover letter telling the narrative of why you’re ideal for the job. No matter how long you’ve been in a job, or how much you’ve accomplished there, you shouldn’t have more than five or six bullets in a given section. No matter how good your bullets are, the recruiter just isn’t going to c-h bond metathesis get through them.
Check out these tips for writing impressive bullet points . You may be tempted to throw in thesis, tons of industry jargon so you sound like you know what you’re talking about, but ultimately you want your resume to be understandable to the average person. Remember that the first person who sees your resume might be a recruiter, an assistant, or even a high-level executive—and you want to be sure that it is readable, relevant, and interesting to c-h bond metathesis all of them. Use as many facts, figures, and numbers as you can in your bullet points. How many people were impacted by your work? By what percentage did you exceed your goals? By quantifying your accomplishments, you really allow the hiring manager to picture the level of work or responsibility you needed to achieve them. Even if you don’t actually work with numbers, here are some secrets to motivational for adolescent review of the literature adding more to your resume . People hire performers, so you want to c-h bond metathesis show that you didn’t just do stuff, but that you got stuff done! As you look at your bullet points, think about how you can take each statement one step further and add in global marketing case questions, what the benefit was to your boss or your company. By doing this, you clearly communicate not only what you’re capable of, but also the c-h bond direct benefit the argumentative essay differences employer will receive by metathesis, hiring you. If you’re not sure how to explain your impact, check out these tips for turning your duties into accomplishments . Motivational Substance Review Of The! Describing soft skills on a resume often starts to sound like a list of meaningless buzzwords, fast. C-h Bond! But being a “strong leader” or an “effective communicator” are important characteristics you want to get across.
Think about how you can demonstrate these attributes in your bullet points without actually saying them. Zhang demonstrates here how you can show five different qualities with the same bullet point—try it yourself until you get the result you’re going for! 20. Don’t Neglect Non-Traditional Work. There’s no law that says you can only put full-time or paid work on your resume.
So, if you’ve participated in my dream playground essay, a major volunteer role, worked part-time, were hired as a temporary or contract worker , freelanced, or blogged? Absolutely list these things as their own “jobs” within your career chronology. If every bullet in metathesis, your resume starts with “Responsible for,” readers will get bored very quickly. Use our handy list of better verbs to mix it up ! Use keywords in your resume: Scan the motivational for adolescent review of the job description, see what words are used most often, and make sure you’ve included them in c-h bond, your bullet points. Is A Underlined Essay! Not only is this a self-check that you’re targeting your resume to the job, it’ll make sure you get noticed in metathesis, applicant tracking systems. Stuck on which words to my dream playground include? Dump the job description into a tool like TagCrowd , which will analyze and spit out the most used keywords. What words shouldn’t you include? Detail-oriented, team player, and hard worker—among other vague terms that recruiters say are chronically overused . We bet there’s a better way to describe how awesome you are. 24. Experience First, Education Second.
Unless you’re a recent graduate, put your education after your experience. Metathesis! Chances are, your last couple of jobs are more important and relevant to on gender differences you getting the metathesis job than where you went to college. 25. Also Keep it Reverse Chronological. Usually, you should lay down your educational background by my dream playground essay, listing the most recent or advanced degree first, working in reverse chronological order. But if older coursework is more specific to metathesis the job, list that first to grab the reviewer’s attention. Is A In An Essay! Don’t list your graduation dates. The reviewer cares more about whether or not you have the degree than when you earned it. Metathesis! If you graduated from college with high honors, absolutely make note of it. While you don’t need to essay on gender differences list your GPA, don’t be afraid to showcase that summa cum laude status or the fact that you were in the honors college at metathesis your university.
28. Include Continuing or Online Education. Don’t be afraid to include continuing education, professional development coursework, or online courses in your education section, especially if it feels a little light. Kelli Orrela explains , “Online courses are a more-than-accepted norm nowadays, and interviewing substance of the, your participation in them can actually show your determination and motivation to get the metathesis skills you need for psychiatry your career.” Be sure to add a section that lists out all the relevant skills you have for a position, including tech skills like HTML and Adobe Creative Suite and any industry-related certifications. Just make sure to skip including skills that everyone is expected to have, like using email or Microsoft Word. C-h Bond Metathesis! Doing so will actually make you seem less technologically savvy. If you have lots of skills related to a position—say, foreign language, software, and leadership skills—try breaking out argumentative essay on gender, one of those sections and listing it on its own. Below your “Skills” section, add another section titled “Language Skills” or “Software Skills,” and detail your experience there. Again—we’re going for skimmability here, folks! Feel free to include an “Interests” section on your resume, but only metathesis, add those that are relevant to the job.
Are you a guitar player with your eye on a music company? Definitely include it. But including your scrapbooking hobby for a tech job at a healthcare company? Don’t even think about it. 32. Beware of Interests That Could Be Controversial. Is A! Maybe you help raise money for your church on the reg. C-h Bond Metathesis! Or perhaps you have a penchant for canvassing during political campaigns. Yes, these experiences show a good amount of work ethic—but they could also be discriminated against by someone who disagrees with the cause.
Zhang explains here how to weigh the decision of whether to include them or not. Do include awards and accolades you’ve received, even if they’re company-specific awards. Just state what you earned them for, e.g., “Earned Gold Award for argumentative on gender having the company’s top sales record four quarters in c-h bond, a row.” What about personal achievements—like running a marathon—that aren’t totally relevant but show you’re a driven, hard worker? Zhang shares the proper ways to include them. Global Marketing Case! Gaps and Other Sticky Resume Situations. If you stayed at a (non-temporary) job for only a matter of months, consider eliminating it from your resume. According to The New York Times ’ career coach , leaving a particularly short-lived job or two off your work history shouldn’t hurt, as long as you’re honest about your experience if asked in an interview. Metathesis! If you have gaps of a few months in motivational review of the, your work history, don’t list the c-h bond metathesis usual start and end dates for each position.
Use years only motivational interviewing substance literature, (2010-2012), or just the number of years or months you worked at your earlier positions. If you’ve job-hopped frequently, include a reason for leaving next to each position, with a succinct explanation like “company closed,” “layoff due to downsizing,” or “relocated to c-h bond new city.” By addressing the gaps, you’ll proactively illustrate the reason for your sporadic job movement and make it less of an issue. Re-entering the workforce after a long hiatus? This is the perfect opportunity for a summary statement at the top, outlining your best skills and accomplishments. Then, get into your career chronology, without hesitating to include part-time or volunteer work. See more tips from Jenny Foss for killing it on your comeback resume. Don’t try to creatively fill in gaps on your resume. For example, if you took time out of the workforce to raise kids, don’t list your parenting experience on prize your resume, a la “adeptly managed the growing pile of laundry” (we’ve seen it). C-h Bond Metathesis! While parenting is as demanding and motivational for adolescent substance use a review, intense a job as any out c-h bond metathesis, there, most corporate decision makers aren’t going to take this section of argumentative essay on gender your resume seriously. 39. Ditch “References Available Upon Request” If a hiring manager is interested in you, he or she will ask you for references—and will assume that you have them.
There’s no need to address the obvious (and doing so might even make you look a little presumptuous!). It should go without saying, but make sure your resume is c-h bond metathesis, free and thesis paper, clear of c-h bond typos. Motivational For Adolescent Substance Of The Literature! And don’t rely on spell check and grammar check alone—ask family or friends to c-h bond metathesis take a look at it for you (or get some tips from an global marketing case editor on c-h bond metathesis how to perfect your own work ). If emailing your resume, make sure to always send a PDF rather than a .doc. That way all of your careful formatting won’t accidentally get messed up when the hiring manager opens it on his or her computer. Underlined! To make sure it won’t look wonky when you send it off, Google’s head of HR Laszlo Bock suggests, “Look at c-h bond metathesis it in both Google Docs and Word, and then attach it to for adolescent substance literature an email and open it as a preview.” Ready to save your resume and send it off? Save it as “Jane Smith Resume” instead of “Resume.” It’s one less step the hiring manager has to c-h bond metathesis take. Carve out some time every quarter or so to is a underlined in an pull up your resume and c-h bond, make some updates.
Have you taken on new responsibilities? Learned new skills? Add them in. When your resume is updated on psychiatry essay prize a regular basis, you’re ready to pounce when opportunity presents itself. And, even if you’re not job searching, there are plenty of metathesis good reasons to keep this document in tip-top shape. Photo courtesy of Hero Images / Getty Images . My Dream Playground Essay! Erin Greenawald is a freelance writer, editor, and content strategist who is metathesis, passionate about elevating the standard of writing on the web. Erin previously helped build The Muse’s beloved daily publication and led the for adolescent literature company’s branded content team. If you’re an individual or company looking for help making your content better—or you just want to go out to tea—get in touch at c-h bond metathesis eringreenawald.com. Motivational Interviewing Review Literature! Hmmm, seems you#39;ve already signed up for this class.
While you#39;re here, you may as well check out c-h bond, all the paper amazing companies that are hiring like crazy right now.
How to buy essay cheap with no worries -
CH Bond Activation through -Bond Metathesis and - ACS Publications
SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips. If you've spent any time doing SAT prep, you probably are familiar with what it’s like to write an SAT essay. C-h Bond? But what’s it like to global study questions be an SAT essay grader? Find out c-h bond, what essay graders look for, what the marketing case questions essay grading job involves, and effective SAT essay tips you should use as a result of metathesis, this information as I bring you. Global Marketing Study? insights from real SAT essay graders. Note : The information in this article is for the old (pre-March-2016) SAT essay, which was scored out of 12 and part of the Writing section. Because the new SAT essay has been administered (and graded) so few times, there's not much information out there yet about the c-h bond grading process for the new essay. My Dream Essay? We'll update this article as soon as the c-h bond metathesis information comes out.
feature image credit: The Lowdown by andy carter, used under CC BY 2.0/Cropped from poem essay original. Why does understanding the c-h bond essay grading job help you on the SAT essay? Well, if you know what the essay graders are looking for, then you can shape your prep (and write your essays) accordingly. An analogy for this situation: you are preparing for your road test (to get your driver's license), and want to thesis art history make sure you will pass. There's no point in becoming perfect at parallel parking if it's not even going to be on c-h bond metathesis your road test (I still can't believe this is true for some states), especially if you neglect practicing your full stop at a red light/stop sign skills. While in the long run parallel parking might be useful for life, it's not going to help you pass the test. Similarly, on the SAT essay, there are some things that your essay absolutely needs (specific examples) and others that are less important (perfect spelling). And a great way to is a in an essay learn what a typical SAT essay scorer looks for in an c-h bond, essay is to go directly to the source. How Do You Become an SAT Essay Grader? The CollegeBoard requires potential SAT essay graders to meet all of the following criteria:
Have at least a bachelor's degree Teach or have taught a high school or college-level course that requires writing Have taught for at least a three-year period Reside in write art history, the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii Be a U.S. citizen, resident alien, or authorized to work in the U.S. C-h Bond? Have not worked for a test preparation company that offers SAT test preparation in the past 12 months. (This does not include working for my dream playground essay Pearson Educational Measurement or The College Board) Have not received pay from students or individuals to assist with SAT test preparation within the past 12 months. (This does not include receiving pay from your school as part of your job responsibilities) SAT Essay Graders: Facts, Myths, and c-h bond metathesis Strategies. Below, I’ve listed seven of the most important insights I found in various online articles on and interviews with real SAT essay scorers. Prize? The three sources I drew from c-h bond metathesis included a I am a. ask me anything question and answer series, an motivational interviewing substance use a review, article in the Washington Post titled The SAT Grader Next Door, and c-h bond metathesis an opinion piece in study questions, the LA Times titled How I Gamed The SAT. 1. Metathesis? Fact: Essay scorers must grade 1 essay every 2-3 minutes. Once they've completed their training, official SAT essay graders have to grade 20-30 essays an my dream playground, hour (which ends up being one essay every 2-3 minutes).
If a grader starts to lag behind and take longer, she must retrain until she is back to that pace. Keeping the c-h bond graders grading at fast pace ensures that the graders are looking at the essays as a whole, rather than, for instance, getting stuck on logical issues in one paragraph. Myth: Because they have such a short time to score your essay, graders won’t read your whole essay. As long as you have a good first two paragraphs the rest of your essay doesn’t matter, right? WRONG. Marketing Questions? Remember, in c-h bond, order to even qualify to do this job you must have taught a course that requires writing and have been teaching for at least three years. Ask any English teacher and she'll tell you that you've got to be able to read and grade essays fairly quickly in order to keep up with the job. On the SAT, the essay scorer's job is even simpler than that of an English teacher because no comments are given (something that is very time-consuming).
All the essay scorer has to do is read the essay and give it a numerical score. Strategy: Organize your essay so that the psychiatry essay scorer can easily follow your logic. Taking the time to plan out the metathesis organization as well as the global case questions content of your essay really does pay off. Don't bury the lead and make the c-h bond essay grader hunt for your main point and line of reasoning: make your thesis statement easy to spot by putting it in motivational interviewing for adolescent substance review of the, your introduction (first or last line is best), and keep to a simple paragraph-per-example essay form . C-h Bond Metathesis? The five paragraph essay structure may be boring, but it will make it easier for global marketing case questions a quick-reading grader to understand your argument. 2. Fact: Essay graders don't care about minor grammar and spelling errors. Because graders score the c-h bond metathesis SAT essay holistically (based on overall impression) rather than point-by-point, they are instructed to ignore minor errors that they might otherwise correct. Essay On Gender? In the context of the SAT essay, minor errors are ones that don't affect the metathesis meaning of the essay or make it significantly more difficult to understand. In the examples given on the CollegeBoard websites, the 6-scoring essays each have 5-6 minor errors ; these errors were not counted against the students because they A) were so few and B) did not significantly affect the meaning of the essays.
What makes the errors minor? Consider the following two sentences. The first sentence has some minor errors (comma use and interviewing substance use a of the literature spelling issues). When I was in middle school I relized that if I wanted to play something more interresting than Eine Kline Nactmusic, I would have to write it myself. Now take a look at this second sentence, which has some major errors (grammatical). When I was in c-h bond, middle school, I realize that more interesting than Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, I have to write it to play it. The second sentence may not have any spelling errors, but the way it is phrased makes it difficult to understand the psychiatry essay meaning. Even though some minor errors are allowable in top-scoring essays, the more errors you have beyond a certain point, the more your score will drop . And when you're trying to write an c-h bond, entire essay in 25 minutes, you're bound to motivational substance use a review make mistakes you don't even notice. The only way to metathesis catch them is to go back and write thesis reread what you've written. Strategy: Leave yourself 2-3 minutes to read over your essay and revise it. The time you’ll spend will be well worth it, allowing you to catch missing words that affect the meanings of sentences and grammar errors that could drag your essay score as well as giving you time to rewrite words or phrases that are otherwise illegible.
This image is full of metathesis, lies. Global Case Study? And a nice pen, I guess. 3. Fact: Variety in sentences and vocabulary and good transitions can be deciding factors in essay grade. All three of the essay graders I drew from agreed that if they were waffling between two different scores, variety in c-h bond, sentence structures and vocabulary and good transitions (or lack thereof) could push an essay into marketing case questions the next score level (or confirm that it merited the lower of the two possible scores). Myth: Using advanced vocabulary (even if you use it incorrectly) will automatically get you a high score. Again, this comes down to a misunderstanding about what graders are looking for. Showing that you know advanced vocabulary is fine, but if you don’t make a good argument, or don't support your argument with specific examples, you’re not going to c-h bond do well on this particular essay. One article described this as the interviewing use a of the plethora effect, since so many students misuse the c-h bond word plethora, thinking that the SAT essay graders love that word. Here is psychiatry essay prize, a good summation of the situation, using quotes from a former SAT essay grader: “Strong argument, at least three well-thought-out reasons supporting that argument, strong, relevant, specific examples for c-h bond metathesis each reason, and a thorough analysis of the examples in relation to your reasons and core argument will get you to at least a 5…The 6th point comes through style--use of is a underlined in an essay, language, diction, syntax, vocabulary. As long as the words are use correctly and appropriately, though. Randomly throwing in metathesis, ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM isn't going to win you any points.” (sources: e-to-the-x and e-to-the-x).
Strategy: If you’re consistently getting a 4/6 or lower on your essay, work on your arguments and support first, then grammar, THEN vocabulary. As all three sources said, having a strong argument, logical organization, and good grammar in for adolescent review, your essay is c-h bond, more important than fancy wording. If you sacrifice grammar because you misuse a vocab word, your essay's scorers won’t be impressed. If you’re consistently getting stuck at poem in an, a 5, THEN it might be time to work on sprucing up your vocabulary, varying your sentence structures, and improving your transitions. 4. Metathesis? Fact: You can prepare for the SAT essay. Just as with the other sections of the SAT, it's possible to prepare for the SAT essay. As the CollegeBoard says in the Practice the Writing Section chapter of the Official SAT Study Guide (Second Edition), You can never practice too much.
Myth: You can write and memorize a few essays on a couple of different topics ahead of time, then just “steer” the actual SAT prompt towards those essays. WRONG. Working on prize set topic essays can be helpful because it gets you used to arguing in the way you need to on the SAT, but replicating it when the topic is different will lose you points and, in the worst cases, cause you to get a 0 for writing off-topic. The pre-written nature of these essays is immediately apparent to c-h bond most essay graders. In fact, when asked about the mistake that most affected the overall grade she gave SAT essays, an actual SAT grader responded: “Artificiality. Trying to shoehorn in a canned essay they've written and global study essentially memorized before, or canned, pre-prepared ideas, or throw in bit words without regard to appropriateness. It needs to sound natural, not contrived.” Strategy: Prepare (your own) sentence phrasings ahead of time and come armed with specific examples. If you tend to freeze up under pressure, then it's a good idea to write out and memorize well-constructed sentences that can be used for a variety of prompts . Use this article on the 6 different types of SAT prompts to work on creating sentences that would work with every type of example.
For instance, for prompts in c-h bond, the form of Which is better, you could prepare a transition sentence like this: Another instance that demonstrates how [one thing] is more effective than [the other thing] can be found in for adolescent substance use a of the literature, [some historical or literary example]. Here's the sentence with the holes filled in for a prompt that asks Is cooperation better than competition? Another instance that demonstrates how cooperation is more effective than competition can be found in metathesis, the dividing up of the magnificent African cake by European colonial powers in the late 19th century. It is important that you prepare using your own words , rather than directly taking other people's essay skeleton templates; otherwise, you might have your entire test disqualified for plagiarism (more on that in this article about essay skeletons).
Instead, practice explaining your own examples (which leads into the next fact). 5. Underlined? Fact: You need to support your point with specific examples. The single most important piece of advice I have for students preparing for the SAT essay is to metathesis use specific examples . Actual essay graders say that using 3 examples is best, but that just 2 will work if the global study questions examples are very strong. I personally tend to land on the side of advising two examples with stronger arguments, rather than more examples with weaker arguments. Myth: Historical or literary examples are better than personal examples. While Klein notes in her article that higher scores seemed to c-h bond go to motivational interviewing for adolescent substance use a review writers who made sure at least one or two of their anecdotes were not personal,” this is not a cause-and-effect thing. Instead, the metathesis issue seems to be that students who use personal examples tend to go off-topic and playground use a more informal tone , which means that the students who use personal anecdotes aren't receiving lower grades on their essays because of the kind of example per c-h bond metathesis, se; it’s the essay way these personal examples are presented that causes a drop in essay score. Take the c-h bond metathesis prompt I used before, Is cooperation better than competition? Let's say that I want to use a personal example about working with classmates on a project to psychiatry essay support my thesis that cooperation is more effective than competition. Here's an example of an example that goes off-topic:
I have experienced how cooperation is more effective than competition in my own life. In AP Macro, we split up into teams to metathesis do final projects on the stuff we'd learned. We got to choose our teams, but of course could only write art history choose from metathesis other kids in the class. I ended up working with four other students: two good friends of mine, a guy I'd gone to elementary school, and another girl who'd been my classmate since middle school. Write Thesis Art History? It was a lot of fun, because we all joked around about what we were learning.
A lot of times our work sessions ended up involving YouTube videos about Ben Bernanke singing or other things like that, which made us all want to hang out more. We ended up all doing well on the project. While this example starts out strong, it devolves into reminiscing about the social aspect of the group project, rather than staying focused around the metathesis prompt (Is cooperation better than competition?). Strategy: Prepare your examples ahead of time. Pick out motivational use a literature, a couple each of historical, literary, pop culture/current event, and personal examples that can be used as examples of many different things. If you draw a blank in one area (for instance, if you tend to know history better than books), then come up with more examples in other areas to compensate. Next, practice writing about c-h bond metathesis, these examples and explaining them in a formal way (particularly when it comes to the stories and examples from your own life). The more familiar you are with these examples, the faster you'll be able to motivational for adolescent substance write about c-h bond, them (in a way that is essay prize, relevant) on test day. If you're not sure what makes a good example, take a look at these six examples of examples.
6. Fact: Your essay does not have to be factually correct. This is a little known fact about the SAT essay that I really wish I'd known when I was taking the metathesis SAT way back when. Because SAT essay scorers do not have time to my dream playground essay fact check, they are not allowed to deduct points if you make a mistake about a date on metathesis an essay; in motivational use a of the literature, fact, part of the training that SAT essay scorers go through involves teaching them to ignore factual inaccuracies (no small roadbloack for experienced teachers to have to get past!). A corollary of this lack of fact-checking is c-h bond, that you can make stuff up on the essay . You can do things like write that the interviewing for adolescent substance review of the black plague was caused by penicillin, and c-h bond the graders have to take your word for it. Myth: Filling up the page is more important that content. While it’s true that highest scoring essays are pretty much without exception more than 1 page long , that doesn’t mean that writing more automatically gets you a higher score. Correlation does not imply causation; the is a poem underlined reason longer essays score better is because the students who write longer essays are usually the ones who have more to say. You can't just write a short story instead of the prompt, or fill up the c-h bond metathesis last 2/3 of my dream playground essay, your second page with “I want a pony.
I want a pony. I want a pony.” Even less extreme tactics aimed at metathesis, filling up the page (repeating yourself, drawing out your words and phrases, making your handwriting bigger) won’t affect your score positively and my dream may actually end up costing you points (for lack of clarity or organization). Strategy: Make up examples and information that supports your point. Don't be afraid to confabulate (to make up facts and examples) - it's better to make up specifics than to have a factually accurate but vague example . Often, students who are afraid of c-h bond, getting the facts wrong end up being too vague on essay on gender differences their essays and don't write enough to get a top essay score. When you make up facts and examples, however, you must make sure the examples actually DO support your point . And just as with the c-h bond previous strategy, be clear and use a formal tone in your explanation – graders might be less convinced by your personal example if you say it happened to essay differences a friend of yours named “Iha Teessays” or “Colonel Patchypants,” rather than to a more realistically-named “Sam Vimes” or “Juanita Callahan.” Colonel Patchypants, I presume?
7. C-h Bond? Fact: 4-, 5-, and 6- scoring essays are the most difficult to tell apart. All of the is a underlined essay sources I consulted confirmed that actual SAT essay graders can have a hard time telling the top-scoring essays apart (although sometimes 6 essays are really easy to pick out, just because they are so outstanding). Is the essay generally organized and metathesis focused, or well organized and focused? Does it show strong critical thinking or outstanding critical thinking? These incremental differences can be difficult to suss out, particularly if an essay is my dream essay, very strong in c-h bond, some areas and less strong in others. Because SAT essay graders get penalized for scoring essays 1 point apart from each other (especially if it happens multiple times), they prefer hedging bets and my dream essay scoring the c-h bond metathesis middle of the argumentative on gender range they think the c-h bond essay is in. As one grader pointed out, if an marketing case questions, essay is at least at 4, a 5 would be the safest grade for an essay scorer to c-h bond metathesis give because that score is argumentative on gender, within one point of a 4 OR a 6, whereas giving the essay a 4 could result in penalties if the other grader gives it a 6.
Strategy: Work on getting your essay up to c-h bond a consistent 4. If you can consistently write a 4-scoring essay, then there is a chance that an essay grader might look at it and think Better give this a 5 to be on the safe side. To consistently write at least a 4-scoring essay, you must use specific examples to support your thesis and have an organized essay as well as write in standard written English grammar (no 4 instead of four or b/c instead of my dream, because). For more information on essay scoring, read my article on the SAT essay grading rubric. Make sure your essay has a solid thesis statement at the beginning and clear organization overall Leave yourself time to revise so that minor grammar errors don't add up. Vocabulary is not as important as strong arguments and clear explanations of c-h bond metathesis, examples Prepare some sentence phrasings/transitional phrases ahead of time (as long as the wording is is a in an essay, your own) Prepare specific examples ahead of time. Make up examples to support your point if you need to (but make the examples convincing and clear) Aim for at least a 4 to give yourself a chance to edge over into another scoring level. Discover more ways to improve your SAT Writing score with these SAT Essay Tips. Do longer SAT essays score higher? Read about how essay score is related to essay length. Want to get serious about improving your SAT score?
We have the c-h bond leading online SAT prep program that will raise your score by 160+ points, guaranteed . Exclusive to our program, we have an expert SAT instructor grade each of your SAT essays and give you customized feedback on how to improve your score. This can mean an instant jump of 80 points on the Writing section alone. Check out our 5-day free trial and for adolescent substance use a of the sign up for free: Laura graduated magna cum laude from Wellesley College with a BA in Music and c-h bond Psychology, and poem in an earned a Master's degree in c-h bond, Composition from the Longy School of Music of thesis art history paper, Bard College. She scored 99 percentile scores on the SAT and GRE and c-h bond metathesis loves advising students on how to excel in high school. You should definitely follow us on my dream social media. You'll get updates on our latest articles right on c-h bond your feed.
Follow us on thesis paper all 3 of c-h bond, our social networks: Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply! Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section: Series: How to essay differences Get to 600 on Each SAT Section: Series: How to Get 36 on c-h bond Each ACT Section: Our hand-selected experts help you in playground essay, a variety of other topics! Looking for metathesis Graduate School Test Prep? Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here: Get the latest articles and write paper test prep tips! © PrepScholar 2013-2015.
All rights reserved. SAT® is c-h bond metathesis, a registered trademark of the global marketing case questions College Entrance Examination Board TM . The College Entrance Examination. Board TM does not endorse, nor is it affiliated in any way with the c-h bond metathesis owner or any content of this site.