<p>For 3b) I said it was due to random mutations and said the population was not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.</p>
<p>^^why would it be expected to be 1:1:1:1???
it was exactly what you should have expected if you understand what it’s saying lol</p>
<p>YES, they’re up!!!</p>
<p>Okay, I have some questions:</p>
<h1>2 (a), did you simply have to find the slope of the line to determine the reaction rate? I figured it was (10.4 uM / 30 minutes) or (5.2 uM / 15 minutes). Is this correct?</h1>
<p>On #2 (c), I originally predicted that twice the amount of maltose would be produced if you double the amylase concentration… but I then realized that was wrong because there is only a limited amount of substrate (starch) upon which the amylase could act. No matter how much enzyme (amylase) you have, the reaction would stop occurring when the starch runs out. So I then predicted that the reaction would produce the same amount of maltose, just twice as fast. Is this correct? Also, is it okay if I scribbled out my original prediction line on the graph and re-drew it? Will they know not to consider my scratched-out line?</p>
<h1>3 (b), I had absolutely no clue what was going on. It didn’t match my predictions in cases I and II.</h1>
<h1>3 (c): Was it just asking for two required conditions are for Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium to occur? I wrote about how there cannot be mutations in the gene pool, and how mating must be random (flies should not select mates based on eye color or wing structure). Is this what they were asking?</h1>
<h1>4 (b): Are sunlight, water, and soil nutrients acceptable?</h1>
<h1>4 (c): In both cases, couldn’t life eventually be restored? In i, I wrote that primary succession can eventually occur, especially since the lava is adding nutrients to the soil by destroying the plants and whatever animals it kills in its path, making it fertile for plant life to eventually grow. In ii, I wrote that it would be secondary succession if plants surrounding the clear-cut area dispersed and grew into the clear-cut area. I stated that unless there was a fence or other barrier isolating the clear-cut area, that plants would eventually re-grow in the cut area. Is this right?</h1>
<p>I’m just anxious to know if I totally screwed up! :p</p>
<p>Am I really the only one that understands 3 b??? hahaha I feel smart lmao!
I love genetics though :D</p>
<p>^^ on the reaction rate, that sounds close to mine
I got like .25 microM’s per minute haha
not exactly that much haha I rounded…I put my real answer but in my justification or whatever I said…it was about this much haha</p>
<p>3b - I said there was linkage (not sex-linkage) and some recombination. Good?</p>
<p>For 3b I said that the two genes didn’t assort independently and were either linked or somehow affected each other. </p>
<p>What was the correct answer?</p>
<p>I didn’t write the number of the question in the box in the top right. It was my first AP test ever so I wasn’t totally familiar with that concept, plus I was nervous.
Is this going to impact me? My questions were clearly labeled in parts and numbered. Skipped pages too like I was supposed to.</p>
<p>@Dillon: I didn’t think to reduce it to a per-minute rate. Do you think it’s a big deal? :(</p>
<p>hmmm recombination will probably get you some points lol
:D</p>
<p>@Alittlemonster - My booklet didn’t have a box in the top-right like I had expected. It was my first AP exam, too… but there was nothing there. ???</p>
<p>^^ nahhhh you didn’t have to lol
I did…I’m sure it doesn’t really matter haha</p>
<p>I didn’t write the number of the question in the box in the top right. It was my first AP test ever so I wasn’t totally familiar with that concept, plus I was nervous.
Is this going to impact me? My questions were clearly labeled in parts and numbered. Skipped pages too like I was supposed to. </p>
<p>^
What box?</p>
<p>do you want to explain why 3B was the way it was? if you did the punnett squares the expected ratios were 1:1:1:1…?</p>
<p>Thanks SeekingUni. What a relief if the box wasn’t even there. I took AP Language today and almost had a stroke when I saw the boxes in the top right and didn’t remember doing that for Bio.</p>
<p>For 3b) wasn;t the expected like 9/16:3/16:3/16:1/16 b/c you were crossing something like WwBb X WwBb ?</p>
<p>For 3b) wasn;t the expected like 9/16:3/16:3/16:1/16 b/c you were crossing something like WwBb X WwBb ? </p>
<p>^
No the expected was 1:1:1:1.
You were crossing WwBb X wwbb</p>
<p>I pretty much effed up my second FRQ - I read the question too quickly and thought it said graph 0-30 minutes, so I graphed that. Then I looked back and I panicked. I basically made my own death bed right there. I tried fixing it - but it was undecipherable. </p>
<p>I wonder if I get points for writing the title and identifying the variables correctly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh - were we supposed to mention the expected ratio?</p>
<p>xxxrunning: You do get points for labeling the axes, providing a title, and sufficient (and consistent) intervals.</p>