The midterm exam time scheduled for November 30 will be fourteen hours. Greetings. Ricardo L. Gulminelli.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Fast Ethernet Adapter Driver Windows 7
PARTIAL DAY OF NOVEMBER 30.
The midterm exam time scheduled for November 30 will be fourteen hours. Greetings. Ricardo L. Gulminelli.
The midterm exam time scheduled for November 30 will be fourteen hours. Greetings. Ricardo L. Gulminelli.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Interview Questions Equity Derivatives
VISIT OF STUDENTS FROM THE CHAIR OF DR. Castagnet.
FRIDAY 19 NOVEMBER STUDENTS OF THE CHAIR OF DR. CLAUDIO CASTAGNETO OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL OF LA PLATA, BRIEFLY SPEAK WITH SOME OF OUR STUDENTS MATTER, FROM THE HS 18.45. ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN DEVELOP AGENDA OF PARTIAL REVIEW. RICHARD L. GULMINELLI. 
FRIDAY 19 NOVEMBER STUDENTS OF THE CHAIR OF DR. CLAUDIO CASTAGNETO OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL OF LA PLATA, BRIEFLY SPEAK WITH SOME OF OUR STUDENTS MATTER, FROM THE HS 18.45. ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN DEVELOP AGENDA OF PARTIAL REVIEW. RICHARD L. GULMINELLI.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Polaroid Camera Take Apart
LAST TWO REVIEWS.
REVIEW OF THE LAST TWO Recuperatorios EXAMS TAKEN THE FIRST PART EIGHTEEN OCTOBER 2010 .-
1. Mat. 19469. GB Student Unless the answer regarding the apparent partner and something of the invalid provisions of Article 13, the test is a very low level. The only made to seek review, demonstrates that it has no real awareness of what they should hear the matter. The answers are poor, sometimes non-existent. The student must make a far superior effort. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
2. Mat. 20212. Virtually DD student does not answer, for solution by reduction to a partner and member of a member in respect of exclusion does not expressly say things orderly and incomplete, some out of context and lacks many details, making several errors such as saying that excluded takes the real value of the contribution. With respect to art. 13 replies wildly, adding alleged provisions not covered by law, evidence in response that do not understand what was the question. Regarding the change of venue is more complete response is noted but did not understand that can only be decided by the board when not included in the statute. Regarding contributions, he says, does not mean answering what is asked. The same is true for mergers and divisions. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. TWO (2) .-
REVIEW OF THE LAST TWO Recuperatorios EXAMS TAKEN THE FIRST PART EIGHTEEN OCTOBER 2010 .-
1. Mat. 19469. GB Student Unless the answer regarding the apparent partner and something of the invalid provisions of Article 13, the test is a very low level. The only made to seek review, demonstrates that it has no real awareness of what they should hear the matter. The answers are poor, sometimes non-existent. The student must make a far superior effort. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
2. Mat. 20212. Virtually DD student does not answer, for solution by reduction to a partner and member of a member in respect of exclusion does not expressly say things orderly and incomplete, some out of context and lacks many details, making several errors such as saying that excluded takes the real value of the contribution. With respect to art. 13 replies wildly, adding alleged provisions not covered by law, evidence in response that do not understand what was the question. Regarding the change of venue is more complete response is noted but did not understand that can only be decided by the board when not included in the statute. Regarding contributions, he says, does not mean answering what is asked. The same is true for mergers and divisions. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. TWO (2) .-
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Inventory Audit Inventory Turnover
RESULT OF THE REVIEW OF REVIEWS Recuperatorios. COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE
REVIEW REVIEW Recuperatorios TAKEN THE FIRST PART EIGHTEEN OCTOBER 2010 .-
In all cases, over tests disapproved, it assumes that students have not demonstrated the minimum level required by the chair, which allows distinctions approaches and issues reasonably questioned as to interconnect them and demonstrate that they understand the background of the institutes under study. In some of the evidence gaps are so large that it is surprising that they have ordered review. In other, we see a good orientation. In cases in which it has been approved, students must take into account benefit that is an opportunity that should draw having an outstanding performance in the second part, since for all cases filed in the case of any doubt be taken into account the background to fail or pass the subject.
1. Mat. 15125. GL No student knows the basics of system reforms are not registered. Reasonably describes the system of partnerships between spouses but did not name the corporations. In his description of question eight, seems to confound the attribution of acts of representatives from society, plural representation that is another thing altogether. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in general, carefully analyzing this test could be said to reach the required level Porla chair. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
2. MAT. 18404. MG Student ignores the rules of art. 20. Fundamenta bad about what the adoption of the financial statements are free to administrators. Do not know the system involving a soc. a foreign national mistaken for art. 124. Do not know the settlement regime at least as asked. It knows no restraint system to contribute to society. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
3. DNI 32337774. GJ student I have discussed in detail the review and made a comparative task with which they have been approved with only four. While many issues lacks depth, externalized by this student is sufficient, criteria for me to qualify with a four. I sincerely believe that this student is able to provide proof of much higher quality, the urge to strive for the second part of the subject. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
4. DNI 33912384. JK student demonstrates he does not know the issue of regularization of art. 22 ls. says that it applies the system of society in education, but then he says some things that are in that art. 22. It is clearly not at all clear the legal system. With regard to home and the system of invalidity, evidence does not know the subject. Partnership between spouses, says almost nothing. Do not know the subject of the article 58 which is very serious to be paramount. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
5. MAT. 18059. Student RDR was a test that came with low but close to approval. But the division issued on evidence processing and ignorance of the basics of these issues and also the causal disolutoria bankruptcy. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
6. DNI 27416948. ML students have some errors and lack of depth in the treatment of the issues. However, comparative analysis of the test with the other approved, but is at the limit, correspond adopt to ensure that the treatment is equal FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
7. Student who did not indicate his or her registration document. P-l-Vz-z is developed a very bad review, confused and almost illegible letter. Some do not answer questions on particular issues and other topics for the category that were not asked. The answers, in some cases are nearly incomprehensible. All this reflects a lack of fitness level and the agenda. Not for approval. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
8. DNI 30451467. SD students a comparative analysis of the level approved warrants in general have seen a sufficient knowledge but unfortunately it is a student who has not used its potential. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
9. MAT. 18472. RMB student does not reach the required level. This is clearly visible, what he says is very poor, ignored key points. Has complied with the superficial. You must make a greater effort to deepen their knowledge if you want to pass the subject in the future. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
10. MAT. 19756/04. LM The student will review could have reached the required standard but the question on the art. 124 is not the answer, speaking of 118 is not the case, is wrong on soc. formation regarding the liability regime which can be held accountable, and said that the LLC may be required to pay the liability partners. All this and makes it must be concluded that: certainly no level, the failing grade should ser confirmada. DOS (2).-
11. D.N.I. 24269161. A.L. Un análisis comparativo de su nivel justifica su aprobación, se excede en las respuestas en algunos casos pero en definitiva, se puede considerar que tiene conocimiento suficiente como para llegar al promedio. NOTA FINAL: CUATRO. (4).-
12. DNI. 29859271 W.J.E. Si bien su nivel no es tan lejano del exigido como mínimo, en algunas respuestas evidencia muy poca profundidad y su examen se desmerece. Sería injusto aprobarlo, a la luz de una comparación con el nivel exigido a los demás alumnos. Debe afirmar más los conocimientos y profundizarlos si quiere aprobar la materia. Indudablemente carece de nivel, su nota reprobatoria debe ser confirmada. DOS (2).-
13. MAT. 20189. DJJ student is a student who has warned lucidly but lacks sufficient knowledge so that their responses are adjusted and development, express concepts that are fundamental errors. With a little effort, this student could probably easily exceed the required level. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
14. DNI 35078222. YP Some topics the student is doing well but in others, elaborates on issues not specifically required and asked the very poorly answered. You're wrong when you ask the art. 20, and the art. 123, practically does not explain anything. Does not reach the level. Certainly no level, the failing grade must be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
15. MAT. 20283. LC student is a test that has many flaws and a low level, it is reprehensible. Should not request review. Wrong answer many questions and few answers them very poor. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
16. Mat. Student DNMS 20684. It shows that he is aware of some issues, but answers some questions so confusing and inadequate. You could say that although poor, consideration reaches required level. Just do it, but a comparative analysis can come to this conclusion. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
Ricardo Ludovico Gulminelli.
REVIEW REVIEW Recuperatorios TAKEN THE FIRST PART EIGHTEEN OCTOBER 2010 .-
In all cases, over tests disapproved, it assumes that students have not demonstrated the minimum level required by the chair, which allows distinctions approaches and issues reasonably questioned as to interconnect them and demonstrate that they understand the background of the institutes under study. In some of the evidence gaps are so large that it is surprising that they have ordered review. In other, we see a good orientation. In cases in which it has been approved, students must take into account benefit that is an opportunity that should draw having an outstanding performance in the second part, since for all cases filed in the case of any doubt be taken into account the background to fail or pass the subject.
1. Mat. 15125. GL No student knows the basics of system reforms are not registered. Reasonably describes the system of partnerships between spouses but did not name the corporations. In his description of question eight, seems to confound the attribution of acts of representatives from society, plural representation that is another thing altogether. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in general, carefully analyzing this test could be said to reach the required level Porla chair. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
2. MAT. 18404. MG Student ignores the rules of art. 20. Fundamenta bad about what the adoption of the financial statements are free to administrators. Do not know the system involving a soc. a foreign national mistaken for art. 124. Do not know the settlement regime at least as asked. It knows no restraint system to contribute to society. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
3. DNI 32337774. GJ student I have discussed in detail the review and made a comparative task with which they have been approved with only four. While many issues lacks depth, externalized by this student is sufficient, criteria for me to qualify with a four. I sincerely believe that this student is able to provide proof of much higher quality, the urge to strive for the second part of the subject. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
4. DNI 33912384. JK student demonstrates he does not know the issue of regularization of art. 22 ls. says that it applies the system of society in education, but then he says some things that are in that art. 22. It is clearly not at all clear the legal system. With regard to home and the system of invalidity, evidence does not know the subject. Partnership between spouses, says almost nothing. Do not know the subject of the article 58 which is very serious to be paramount. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
5. MAT. 18059. Student RDR was a test that came with low but close to approval. But the division issued on evidence processing and ignorance of the basics of these issues and also the causal disolutoria bankruptcy. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
6. DNI 27416948. ML students have some errors and lack of depth in the treatment of the issues. However, comparative analysis of the test with the other approved, but is at the limit, correspond adopt to ensure that the treatment is equal FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
7. Student who did not indicate his or her registration document. P-l-Vz-z is developed a very bad review, confused and almost illegible letter. Some do not answer questions on particular issues and other topics for the category that were not asked. The answers, in some cases are nearly incomprehensible. All this reflects a lack of fitness level and the agenda. Not for approval. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
8. DNI 30451467. SD students a comparative analysis of the level approved warrants in general have seen a sufficient knowledge but unfortunately it is a student who has not used its potential. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
9. MAT. 18472. RMB student does not reach the required level. This is clearly visible, what he says is very poor, ignored key points. Has complied with the superficial. You must make a greater effort to deepen their knowledge if you want to pass the subject in the future. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
10. MAT. 19756/04. LM The student will review could have reached the required standard but the question on the art. 124 is not the answer, speaking of 118 is not the case, is wrong on soc. formation regarding the liability regime which can be held accountable, and said that the LLC may be required to pay the liability partners. All this and makes it must be concluded that: certainly no level, the failing grade should ser confirmada. DOS (2).-
11. D.N.I. 24269161. A.L. Un análisis comparativo de su nivel justifica su aprobación, se excede en las respuestas en algunos casos pero en definitiva, se puede considerar que tiene conocimiento suficiente como para llegar al promedio. NOTA FINAL: CUATRO. (4).-
12. DNI. 29859271 W.J.E. Si bien su nivel no es tan lejano del exigido como mínimo, en algunas respuestas evidencia muy poca profundidad y su examen se desmerece. Sería injusto aprobarlo, a la luz de una comparación con el nivel exigido a los demás alumnos. Debe afirmar más los conocimientos y profundizarlos si quiere aprobar la materia. Indudablemente carece de nivel, su nota reprobatoria debe ser confirmada. DOS (2).-
13. MAT. 20189. DJJ student is a student who has warned lucidly but lacks sufficient knowledge so that their responses are adjusted and development, express concepts that are fundamental errors. With a little effort, this student could probably easily exceed the required level. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
14. DNI 35078222. YP Some topics the student is doing well but in others, elaborates on issues not specifically required and asked the very poorly answered. You're wrong when you ask the art. 20, and the art. 123, practically does not explain anything. Does not reach the level. Certainly no level, the failing grade must be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
15. MAT. 20283. LC student is a test that has many flaws and a low level, it is reprehensible. Should not request review. Wrong answer many questions and few answers them very poor. Certainly no level, your failing grade to be confirmed. DOS (2) .-
16. Mat. Student DNMS 20684. It shows that he is aware of some issues, but answers some questions so confusing and inadequate. You could say that although poor, consideration reaches required level. Just do it, but a comparative analysis can come to this conclusion. FINAL NOTE: FOUR. (4) .-
Ricardo Ludovico Gulminelli.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)