You are taking a multiple choice test for which you have mastered 70% of the material.

Assume this means that you have 0.7 chance of knowing the answer to a random test question, and that if you don't know the answer to a question then you randomly select among the four answer choices. Finally, assume that this holds for each question, independent of the others.

(a) What is your expected score (as a percent) on the exam?

Let p be the probability of getting a random question correct. You likely found p in part

(a), but in any case you should assume 0.7 < p < 0.9.

In parts (b), (c) and (d) you can just use the letter p for this probability.

(b) If the test has 10 questions, what is the probability you score 90% or higher? (Do not simplify the expression you get.)

(c) What is the probability you get the first 6 questions on the exam correct? (Again, do not simplify the expression you get.)

(d) Suppose you need 90% to keep your scholarship. Would you rather have a test with 10 or 100 questions? Why? (Your answer only needs to be one sentence long.)

For two reasons, the right to explain one's actions provided in CCO 12.08.030 is inconsequential. First, any explanation could not be properly evaluated against the ordinance's inadequate guidelines.^[25]The absence of any standards by which to evaluate such an explanation renders the right to explain inconsequential.

Second, the enforcing authorities could simply disregard the explanation. Under CCO 12.08.030, only the opportunity to explain is required; once afforded, the person may be arrested regardless of his or her explanation. The enforcing authorities are not required to give the explanation any weight.^[26]Thus, the right to explain one's actions provided in CCO 12.08.030 fails as an effective safeguard against the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the ordinance. Consequently, the ordinance fails to provide adequate guidelines to officers, which renders it unconstitutionally vague under the second prong of the vagueness doctrine.

Question 1

How long should antiepileptic treatment be continued for a stroke patient who has the first seizure within the first 24 hours of the stroke?

Question 2

For how long should antiepileptic drugs be given to patients having their first seizure within the first week of their cerebrovascular stroke?

Question 3

What are the causes of epilepsy with a normal electroencephalogram (EEG), other than metabolic causes? Could epilepsy due to CNS causes

Question 4

What are uncinate fits?

Question 5

Are epileptic fits occurring strictly during sleep pathognomonic for

frontal or temporal lobe epilepsy or any other epileptic syndrome?

Question 6

Despite childhood somnambulism often disappearing later in life, could its first presentation after puberty on a nearly daily basis, raise the possibility of frontal lobe epilepsy or other organic pathology? Would an electroencephalogram (EEG) or polysomnography confirm this?

Question 7

Could masticatory automatisms follow a generalized tonic-clonic fit? If so, would these or would these not be considered part of the same fit?

Question 8

Is it common for epileptic patients to have postictal vomiting? If so, how often does this occur?

Question 9

In temporal lobe epilepsy, what is meant by 'cephalic aura' and how does this manifest itself?

Question 10

What is the difference between pseudoseizures and pseudopseudoseizures?