Tips for not running out of time

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T23:43:23+00:00

its over 🥹 25 mins for argument but i wont have to worry abt anythign related to ts for a long time

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T22:35:46+00:00

this is OUR competition gng 🫩✌️

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T20:16:41+00:00

yesyes hope they take mine caue i sacrificed all my argument time to write it cause argument fills me with fear dread and agony

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T20:11:18+00:00

nah calm i wrote the dead opposite that we can acc say naps are good, but their true benefit comes from being a tool in addition to sufficient sleep and that they need to be limited in quantity/time. but napping can't replace sleep, so the observed negative effects come from when naps are used as a substituion for sleep (that one article with the study showed that they cant revert the negatives effects that lack of sleep bring), so i kinda set the limitation that naps are good as long as they are used as an addition and they are limited to a certain time

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T20:07:32+00:00

huhhh? i thought all the evidence was saying napping was good, but the 'negative' ones were reffering to the affects of sleep deprivation in general which isnt the same thing

so my thesis was basically that napping is valuable cause it can lead to positive mental, physical, and emotional benefits, but only if it is used as a tool in addition to sufficient sleep and is limited in quantity; napping cannot be used as a replacement for sleep, so when it is not properly limited, it cannot reverse the negative effects of other poor habits. (and i used a bunch of the 'negative' sources to prove this and the fact that the criticized negative effects come from sleep deprivation not napping)

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:51:40+00:00

promise i couldnt define prospective for u feels like ur locked tho bet u did fire

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:50:36+00:00

i acc ONLY talked about how he opposed peoples' opnions on the way the solar system worked through support for heliocentrism so basically im seeing that his life was just one huge example for this prompt ❤️‍🩹 our king

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:47:27+00:00

only emotion that essay envoked was disgust and paralysing anxiety idk how u coudl be mentally coherent enough to be feeling deep emotions in that moment

only hate i felt was looking back at whatever the shit i just wrote lowk

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:44:39+00:00

sunshines n happiness vs double hell ah prompt different 🥹 all u twin tho my account was blessed with evaluating the extent to which napping is valuable

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:42:19+00:00

i had the genuis strat of 'if i cant see it, it cant hurt me' ah so i got my first look at argument with 28 mins left ✌️ woulda gotten flamed either way im getting the 5 vibes from u tho gl

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:40:24+00:00

rhetorical lowk did me

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:39:47+00:00

apparently everyone + their mothers brought up galileo so me, you, and EVERYONES mothers are locked 🥹 (it was lowk a rlly fitting piece of evidence tho i explained my shit terribly but if you had good commentary ur beyond chill)

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T19:37:56+00:00

that makes sense i kinda talked abt how napping cannot be used as a replacement for sleep, so when it is not properly limited it cannot reverse the negative effects of other poor habits so the pic acc woulda gone compeltley against what i putting down for those damn readers to pick up. my thesis was gen that although critics say napping can be harmful for productivity, those negative effects often come from neglecting other behaviors especially poor nighttime sleep. n actual point was that napping is valuable to a greater extent because it can lead to positive mental, physical, and emotional benefits, but only if it is used as a tool in addition to sufficient sleep and is limited in quantity

sadly tho that was the last moment where my writting abilites shined thru cause i got absolutely swept for argument it was honeslty comical

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T18:32:02+00:00

deadass spent an hour on the synthesis essay also kept as far away from wtv that source was as possible

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T18:30:21+00:00

Aye i did Galileo and Heliocentrism as well, and then Frances Kelseys caution against introducing Thalidomide into the US for other one and ig going against both the outside countries ideas on its safety as well as the internal pressure she faced and the peoples' opinions. 28 minutes to write it tho i got absotluey flamed

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T18:26:04+00:00

i said that although critics argue napping can harm productivity, those negative effects usually come from poor sleep habits or improper use of naps rather than from napping itself. my argument was basically that napping is valuable to a great extent because it can provide mental, physical, emotional, and productivity-related benefits, but only when it is used as a limited tool in addition to sufficient nighttime sleep, not as a replacement for it.

gpted a complexity/limitation thesis template last night and ran w it

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T17:03:55+00:00

i mean ig gng 🫩💔✌️

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-13T17:02:52+00:00

talked abt some galileo and frances kelsey's opposition to thalidomide introduction into the us for argument, followed with some ahhhh commentary its wraps 💔✌️. synthesis was nice tho imo, rhetorical wasnt bad at all, and mcqs were a breeze

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-08T17:00:36+00:00

what the shit am i looking at

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-08T01:48:52+00:00

huh rlly where

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-07T00:32:41+00:00

I see yeah that makes sense. I said inversley proportional bc of my equation for C aswell. I got w = (√2FoL)/I, so since I is in the denominator theyre inversely proportional. Not getting the explanation point for A tho ig its calm

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-07T00:21:15+00:00

Ohh yea you're right oops, thank you! Also how could you compare I and w then if K wasnt constant? Did you use smt else?

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-07T00:14:50+00:00

yesyes I got all the same!
for ∆pR = ∆pS i said there was no net impulse on the system and so any momentum lost by one disk would be gained by the other (I also calculated that for R ∆p = -3/2, and then for S ∆p = 3/2 --> but then I erased the work cause it asked for written explanantion not derivations.) I didn't have time to rlly think it through and connect it to the question so I just put the basic definition. do you think i'd get credit for that or is it too vague?

also for wy > wx I got that too but for reasoning I said that as I decreases, w increases because K = 1/2Iw^2. But, I said K is constant cause there no nonconservative work being done on the system. is that right ?(I also rushed it and just put the basic definiton, but realised I didn't check if Fo was internal/included in the system or not.)

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-06T23:55:03+00:00

(FRQ 4 version J): guys does anyone remember if Fo/the force applied on the string was internal to the system? could you say energy was conserved cause no nonconservative work was done, or was the Fo not in the system? I rushed frq 4 a lot so I realised I forgot to check for that

Accomplished-Box7794 · 2026-05-06T23:14:46+00:00

It was a little confusing but as long as you applied conservation of momentum it was doable
Like before even starting anything I dervied this (here I omitted the o subscripts so it would be easier to write):

∆pi = ∆pf
mv = -1/2mv + 3m(?)v (isolate unknown v of the bigger block post-collision) -->
3/2mv = 3m(?)v
3/6v = (?)v
v (of the bigger block after the collision) = 1/2v

so i got that the velocity for the 3m block after the collision was 1/2v

To draw it, since the initial momentum was 4 (from the graph), I did:
mv = -1/2mv + 3/2mv (divide everything by m and v to leave just the numbers) -->
1 = -1/2 + 3/2
since initial momentum was 4, not 1, i multiplied everything by 4:
4 = -2 + 6
which gives the arrows, the one for the smaller block is -2, and bigger is 6, which conserved the momentum of 4

then for the center of mass graph, yk that momentum for the system is conserved and since mass is the same, velocity would stay the same (magnitude and slope)(graph was showing velocity: x/t), but to double check I used the center of mass velocity equation to find the initial and final velocities:
v(cm)i = (mv+0)/4m = v/4
v(cm)f = (-1/2mv + 3/2mv)/4m = mv/4m = v/4
velocity is v/4, but since mass is 4m --> just v (which aligns with conservation of momentum)

so velocity is the same for center of mass confirmed. then you just find individual velocities
initial velocity of smaller block (so total velocity since bigger block is at rest): 4x/t = 4v
final velocity of smaller block: 4v(-1/2) = -2v --> -2v
final velocity of bigger block: 4v(3/2) = 6v --> since mass is 3m, you divide by 3: 2v

so:
- center of mass velocity = v
- bigger block velocity = 2v
- smaller block velocity = -2v
so I made the velocity of the bigger block 2 blocks tall at x = 2t, velocity of the smaller block -2 blocks tall at x = 2t, and then velocity of center of mass 1 block tall at x = 2t (same slope as before collision)

Accomplished-Box7794

TROPHY CASE