Your sentence is a tautology: trimming it a bit yields:
"Do you suck at engineering if you are [...] bad at [...] engineering?"
The other subjects add nothing; you could throw in polo and underwater basketweaving as well (on either the "good" or "bad" side) and the sentence would still be true.
If this is an example of your typical thought process, I can pretty much conclude that yeah, you're bad at engineering, physics, chemistry, and programming, and I could even be specific as to why. Also, you're not nearly as good at math as you think you are (you might be good at arithmetic, which is something different).
Not necessarily.
That depends on the individual
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
You HAVE to be good at mathematics to be good at chemistry, physics and engineering. It's not a handicap, it's a necessity.
No.
Yes, math is more closely applicable to physics, chemistry, and engineering, than biology and programming are.
no
Such a correlation is absurd.
Not necessarily.
yes
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
That depends on the individual
No, all the others are much more math-related than programming.
Certainly! All he needs to do is slough off his chemistry, physics, and engineering classes, and he can fail them just as solidly as if he were poor at math.Yes, to be very good in chemistry and physics and engineering you have to be good in mathTo be good in math you do not have to be very good in chemistry or physics or engineering
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
You HAVE to be good at mathematics to be good at chemistry, physics and engineering. It's not a handicap, it's a necessity.