<p>I put predators consuming pests so people wouldn’t be forced to use pesticides to eliminate the pests. Does that work?</p>
<p>Seems legitimate but really broad. On the other hand, mine was animals and birds, so that’s broad as hell too…</p>
<p>anyone else put negative feedback loop for the poor countries kids one?</p>
<p>Edit: Yea nevermind the answer is positive…I just looked up the definitions. Positive means spiraling out of control(can be a negative thing…grr common sense didn’t work) and negative means stability.</p>
<p>Actually, the answer on the poverty one was positive feedback. I am enrolled in AP biology, and positive/negative feedback has nothing to do with whether or not the outcome is positive or negative. In negative feedback, a process’s rate decreases when its results become evident, and in positive feedback, a process accelerates with time as its presence grows. So with the poverty, as it becomes more widespread, people will in turn continue to have children. If it was negative feedback, then the poverty would stop people from having children.</p>
<p>so i did this test today. its pretty much bittersweet, hoping for a 3 or a 4. I was extremely tired from last night, and haven’t studied for like a few weeks. MC was my strong part, except for some of the questions (*** random diseases?) no idea about coal types. other MC’s fine. probably around 70+ right.</p>
<p>I think I bombed some of the FR questions, and not because i didnt know the answer but because im afraid i was too broad and generic. for the geothermal one I just wrote about steam and heat and how this is turned into kinetic energy using a “machine”. i tagged on that there is a cycle that involves cold and hot water. pretty crappy explanation. </p>
<p>totally bombed the one with the calculations, I forgot everything about math and the metric system. horrible, i just scribbled some equation.</p>
<p>i used a bunch of real world examples. for example, i remember reading about the ability of certain aquatic bacteria to break down oil, i.e BP spill, and used that to explain the “helper organism” thing. I hope i wasnt too generic with “bacteria”. :</p>
<p>i also forgot that salnizatiation dealt with salt! i just said “its when the soil is flooded with too much water and it becomes unarable”. and then for an example i said runoff. is that fine?</p>
<p>Yeah, I took the APES Exam and found the MC to be really hard, I guess in so many problems (20+). In the released exams I took (1998, 2003, 2008 audit), I always got around 80 out of 100 right, but now I think I’ll get a 4 unless the curve is good, in which I’ll get 5.</p>
<p>Gaia hypothesis says the life can change the ecosystem to further allow life to persist. Basically, an organism can alter an environment to benefit itself. Thanks Botkin and Keller for that!</p>
<p>BT bacteria apparently exist according to Google. I hope that was the right answer.</p>
<p>NOTE: The answer in no way implies what the question was asking. Just an FYI.</p>
<p>i agree about the MC; i think I got about 70-80 of them; hopefully that should do it for a 5.</p>
<p>as for that free response thing about geothermal energy, i just said something really generic about steam and heat being harnessed from under the crust, blah blah blah. it was really vague. also, sugarcane is more sustainable because it is a crop rather than a hydrocarbon compound (like the tar sands)…is that right or not? I totally guessed that tar sands are combustible oil-like things…i guess I wasnt totally off on that front…</p>
<p>I thought the multiple choice was reasonable, but the frq’s, ***? Maybe 2 out of the 4 were easy. Hoping for a 4. lol Apes was on my brain all day even when i went and took the AP psych exam after. oops!:P</p>
<p>The test was definitely harder than the practice ones I took. Do you think I’m screwed if I wrote 2 of the FRQs on one of the question spaces by accident?</p>
<p>Yea sugarcane(biofuel) is much more sustainable. We have 50 yrs of oil left for the world. We have way more years of biofuels. </p>
<p>I really don’t know how the FRQs were hard for some people? They were so easy to bs, you just think of something decent to waver around and put in lots of big words related to EnviroSci. MC is what I found so hard.</p>
<p>i thought sugarcane was ethanol</p>
<p>I think they would give credit for either answer, given with a reasonable explanation.
I said the tar sands were more sustainable, because it has limited uses other than being a source of fuel, while sugarcane is a food source and other things. (Not trying to talk about answer in general, just thinking how I think they will grade it.</p>
<p>I thought MC was superr hard (67%?) and FR all right (80%?), do you think I would get a 4 or 5?</p>
<p>Hey guys, I was wondering if its okay to draw a diagram on the FRQs, I drew one for the geothermic thing, just wondering if that was OK or not cause I didnt really read the directions.</p>
<p>Man that was extremely easy. I pretty much did nothing for this exam except read a few chapters (like three) out of the princeton review book, and some flashcards and whatnot. I was really freaking out for the test, but it turned out to be very very very very easy. I used the knowledge I got from 9th grade earth science for the test. </p>
<p>Aren’t we like not supposed to talk about the frq’s yet? and NEVER about the MCs?</p>
<p>i didnt take the test today…but mesothelioma is from asbestos…thats commonly spammed on those grabby lawyer commercials</p>
<p>I self studied with Barrons (bad idea) and alot of the m/c wasn’t on there. Snail disease, Gaia Theory, WTH? Also I got the question about soil salinization wrong, I said the PH raises but basically said nothing about runoff or salt. And the practice tests were way easier than this test. Basically I’m just repeating everything said above, lol. Overall probably got a 4 or 5.</p>
<p>Who went ahead and argued that sugarcane was more sustainable? What were your reasons?</p>
<p>I took the safe route, saying that sugercane was more sustainable because it is a plant and a renewable resource vs tar sands. But that might have been too safe…</p>