Although I enjoyed the trivia in this book and learned a lot of tidbits, the longer I read, the more I was put off by the obvious political bias. It's subtle, but after awhile it becomes unmistakable. The Harding scandals, for instance, are characterized as follows: "Harding was personally honest but exploited by his business cronies." Rosalynn Carter, we are told, "wore an old dress to the inaugural" (she could have instead been characterized as "economical"). Nixon's scandals are never mentioned without an accompanying comment regarding the poor character traits of his Democratic foes. George W. Bush is called a "fine student," while we are told that Clinton "never earned a degree at Oxford" (he was not in fact on a degree-granting program). The author gives an account of Teddy Roosevelt's attitude toward muckraking that does not comport with what I have read by other historians. The instances of bias compile the longer you read; these are just a few of the numerous examples.

James Humes is a former speechwriter for Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the first Bush, so I suppose this bias is not surprising, and I personally have no problem with partisan argument per se. I'm an Independent voter so I have no particular axe to grind in either direction. What bothers me is that a clearly partisan stance is packaged in an apparently neutral and innocent, "fun" wrapper--"tantalizing trivia and fun facts." It's disingenious and deceitful. I believe readers deserve to know when they are getting something different than what is advertised. If Humes is trying to make a case for Republican "honesty" and superior values, it is ironic that he does so in a most dishonest manner.

Had I known there were so many "mini-sermons" embedded among the "tantalizing trivia," I would have saved my [money]. Good presidential trivia books abound, and most of them are marketed more honestly than this deceptive little volume. Truly irresponsible reporting and marketing. Mr. Humes, your prejudices are showing.

This is the ninth edition and they can't get it right. Unfortunately, it was given to me as a gift otherwise I would return it. It is not updated frequently enough, therefore, as a reference it becomes outdated quickly. It is missing quite a few drugs approved in 1999 and early 2000. Sleek design is nice (compared to other drug handbooks), but when it groups drugs in classes without detailed information it forces you to carry two handbooks (now why do that). It would be nice to have more comparison charts-they are helpful. Maybe the tenth edition (in 2001???) will be better.

I was greatly disappointed in this text. Its style is pedantic and difficult to manage without great effort. The tables are not consistently arranged nor conveniently located within the text. Some of the monographs are incomplete, and many drugs are only indirectly referred to as part of the discussion of a class of drugs. Patients do not take 'classes' of drugs. Worst of all however was the discussion of medical emergencies. Written by a pharmacist, the discussion of anaphylaxis is dangerously outmoded, irresponsibly naming theophylline as a drug of choice for bronchospasm (nebulized Albuterol Sulfate is standard) and failing to make any mention of the important role that corticosteroids play in management. Shame on you!

I owned the last few editions of this book and find that the drug use in special populations to be the most useful. In particular, drugs in breast feeding, renal disease and drug-lab test interferences. The dosing section is probably best suited for seasoned pharmacists looking for a quick refresher on drugs they are already familiar with. Dr. Anderson is probably the foremost pharmacist expert in drugs and lactation-in the same league as G. Briggs. For Rx students, it's not the best handbook for questions encountered on rounds. This book is for the experienced RPh. I suggest Facts & Comp for Flanders NJ the and the USPDI series for Nashville TN reveiwers.

First, The book had a lot of errors. Second, the tests in this book ( although there are 6 of them) are much easier than the AP Exam and it excludes a lot of concepts that the actual AP exam stresses. So I would stay away from this book.

Do not buy this book. It's explanations are poor, it has way too many typos, and it doesn't have real AP tests. I thought it would be nice having solutions to problems to work from, but they were no good.

....There's a modern version of this book (the one with rainbowcolors). I took five out of the six tests...and every time I took a test...it would lower my esteem A LOT! So if you have a high esteem....I would get this book...otherwise don't get it at all. The multiple choice questions are WAY HARDER than the ones in the ap exam ~ so...I guess it was good practice (but I felt like I wasted my time...so this book is NOT RECOMENDED for last minute studying). And the free response questions...are NOTHING like the ap exam (the one in the REA seems to be easier). I believe there are better books out there. I would recomend the Barron's AP Chemistry book (warning: this book is like another text book...so if you have a very good background..then you probably don't even need this book). Finally I really recomend EVERYONE to get the Princeton Review book. The book contains the majority of the information that is included in the AP Chemistry exam. The book is also presented in an UNINTIMIDATING format...and you'll be able to review the whole course in 3 hours or less if you use the book efficiently. ....

well, this must be the case considering how terrible this guide is. Even though the authors claim to have PhDs, they have no clue about even introductory micro or macroeconomics. Their questions must be in some sort of secret code because I can't understand them! Their answer explanations are often wrong and the book is covered with mistakes and errors. If you get utterly frustrated doing their tests, don't worry - the actual test is nothing like it. Just throw this book into the garbage where it belongs and use ETS's preparatory test guide and the textbooks you used in college to review.

i found many mistakes in this book, including errors in formulas in the preparation chapters and miscalculations in the actual answers, not to mention numerous typos. the historical questions were written in the late 80's and haven't been updated since. and the tests overall are much easier than the real thing, so be careful. unfortunately, there isn't a great variety of econ gre books in the market, but if you can find another one, i'd try that before buying this outdated, badly edited book. [madmp@excite.com]

There are errors in this book, and the focus is off. The writers don't seem to have a good understanding of the GRE economics test, or the desire to find out. I think this book is sold simply by virtue of its title and the absence of any other test guide on the market. The best preparation is to use a good summary of the relevant economics concepts (which I had to prepare myself since I couldn't find any other GRE economics guidebook) and to practise on the actual test that ETS has put out. This approach served me well. Feel free to e-mail me at radagrawal@hotmail.com if you have any further questions.

The first person is right this book does nothing for the parents,there is no way you can figure out what is going on unless you have had algebra before, no examples no help what so ever.

These series have not examples to follow, no parent helps. No other books are taken home to show how to work the problems! Unless you (an adult) have extensive algebra training, forget this series.

A great many of the exercises in this book require the electronic templates specially created for the class (apparently this book was written by some Community college folks for one of their classes). NO CD or URL accompanies the book to access the electronic templates leaving readers SOL for some of the exercises. Even at used book prices, it wasn't worth it.

PLESE send boock to address:iran - tehran - tehranpars - hakimiih - st.bahar-st.behesht-alloy behesht 2 - 2449

I wasn't a big fan of this book, too little detail and not enough background for me.

I was assigned this text book for a class on The Art of Human Communication, which is about the history of the philosophy of rhetoric. I'm a very good student, but I have a terrible time understanding this book - it's not clearly written at all. The writing is overblown and unclear, and nothing is in bold or clearly headed to make understanding the writing any easier. I also don't think it flows very well, it's hard to follow and understand. My professor has promised to change text books next semester, and I would recommend that others choose another text as well!