CSSA- Biology (1 Viewer)

[Riproot]

I got 89 yeeeeeeeeeeeeew..!!

Fuck off you cunt.
I got 84.5... I am disappoint. :/
Fuckin' shit.
Fuckin'g rank dropped from 2nd to 3rd, but I'm going to ask miss about a few questions because I don't understand wtf was up with some of the shit.

 

[vemanjj]

I got 85% 20/20 for multiple choice
Rank from 11th to 3rd
Comeback of the year

 

[Riproot]

I got 85% 20/20 for multiple choice
Rank from 11th to 3rd
Comeback of the year

I got fucking 12/15 for the multiple choice left in the exam from CSSA. WTF was question 19?!

 

[clissold]

I got fucking 12/15 for the multiple choice left in the exam from CSSA. WTF was question 19?!

I got 12/15 too..

But I got Q19 right, ner ner

 

[mb94]

Biology was pretty difficult. Going to lose my rank now. Oh well, second trial coming up... weighs 25%

you have two trials? wow

 

[Riproot]

I got 12/15 too..

But I got Q19 right, ner ner

You disgusting slut!
Fucking Liam got the same.
He got 1 mark off in the writing section in the middle and he actually earned that mark but didn't bother asking miss about it because if he came first by more it doesn't help him it only disadvantages us.
Wtf?! Who gets 54/55 for that?! Wtf?!

 

[UnrealAnchovies]

19/20 for multiple choice

5/7 for the 7 marker and 3 for the 5 marker on the glofish lol

 

[KatherinePierce]

This is shit. I could've aced this one subject.
Got around 90-95. [not saying my mark]
Ugh, not good.
Lose my top rank, ugh.

 

[tess16]

heyy! does anyone have good notes on genetics- code broken?? I'm willing to trade! i find genetics like impossible to understand!

 

[smartalec]

heyy! does anyone have good notes on genetics- code broken?? I'm willing to trade! i find genetics like impossible to understand!

search in google 'Ahmad shah idil' and click the first option that comes up. he did that option and his notes ads AMAZING.
on another note, got 86 for bio. happy with that.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Anybody else think that question 19 from the CSSA multiple choice was wrong?

From the paper:
______________________________________________________________________________
19. An endotherm has been defined as an animal that can control its body temperature by internal mechanisms.

A student researching endotherms obtained the following information from Wikipedia.

"The overall rate of an animal's body temperature increases by a factor of about two for every 10C rise in ambient temperature".

The relevance and reliability of this information from this site would be considered:

(A) NOT RELEVANT --- NOT RELIABLE
(B) RELEVANT --- NOT RELIABLE
(C) NOT RELEVANT --- RELIABLE
(D) RELEVANT --- RELIABLE
_________________________________________________________________________________

Firstly, it doesn’t make sense. How do you measure the rate of an animal’s body temperature? Secondly, how can you conclude that the article is unreliable without looking at the sources? I looked at the references to the wikipedia article from which this quote was taken after the exam and they’re all mostly from peer-reviewed journals and such. They also misquoted the actual statement:

“The overall rate of an animal's metabolism increases by a factor of about two for every 10 °C”

I chose B for the sake of pleasing the markers (since so many people have a stigma against the reliability of wikipedia sources. In my opinion it should have been D). As it turns out, the correct answer was A.

I can understand it not being reliable, but not relevant? Thoughts?

 

[Dylanamali]

You always have to say that Wikipedia is unreliable, even though it may be.. the fact that supposedly anyone can add to it/change it, makes it unreliable. Secondly, the article is not relevant - this is because the article is describing an ectotherm (animal temp changing from changes in the ambient temperature) whilst the student is researching endotherms.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'm fairly sure the quote is describing either an endotherm (or possibly both endotherms and ectotherms. The article only makes reference to an 'animals' rate of metabolism, but since it's in an article describing endotherms I'd think it's the first.)

You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endotherm

Also, it's describing the rate of an animal's body temperature which doesn't make sense regardless of whether it's an endotherm or an ectotherm.

 

[vemanjj]

Anybody else think that question 19 from the CSSA multiple choice was wrong?

From the paper:
______________________________________________________________________________
19. An endotherm has been defined as an animal that can control its body temperature by internal mechanisms.

A student researching endotherms obtained the following information from Wikipedia.

"The overall rate of an animal's body temperature increases by a factor of about two for every 10C rise in ambient temperature".

The relevance and reliability of this information from this site would be considered:

(A) NOT RELEVANT --- NOT RELIABLE
(B) RELEVANT --- NOT RELIABLE
(C) NOT RELEVANT --- RELIABLE
(D) RELEVANT --- RELIABLE
_________________________________________________________________________________

Firstly, it doesn’t make sense. How do you measure the rate of an animal’s body temperature? Secondly, how can you conclude that the article is unreliable without looking at the sources? I looked at the references to the wikipedia article from which this quote was taken after the exam and they’re all mostly from peer-reviewed journals and such. They also misquoted the actual statement:

“The overall rate of an animal's metabolism increases by a factor of about two for every 10 °C”

I chose B for the sake of pleasing the markers (since so many people have a stigma against the reliability of wikipedia sources. In my opinion it should have been D). As it turns out, the correct answer was A.

I can understand it not being reliable, but not relevant? Thoughts?

I got it right. I said it wasn't relevant coz...clearly it's misquoted - You can't have a rate of temperature. And the person wanted to know about endotherms. When does the ambient temperature ever have an effect on an endotherm? Not really ever, and we quickly try to counteract temp changes. It just doesn't make sense that it would be talking about an endotherm. And wikipedia is more reliable than encyclopaedia britannica, but for reliability you need comparison and they didn't say that they had compared their sources with anything so I put unreliable. Hope this helps.