<p>i put that as my answer sbl0323</p>
<p>Okay, well I’m pretty sure I put that as my choice.</p>
<p>Why can’t people spell Toba?
I actually got lucky with that - I just watched a NOVA episode about Toba, so I knew exactly what they were talking about.
[NOVA</a> | Lessons From a Supervolcano](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lessons-supervolcano.html]NOVA”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lessons-supervolcano.html)
[Toba</a> catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory]Toba”>Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>For the “which one would help scientist 2’s argument” i put the one with “more mutations in the younger age”
becuase that would mean that those mutations would accumulate and be a lot by when the person was old…??</p>
<p>^ Wasn’t scientist 2’s argument that the mutations accumulate over time? If so, the answer you chose would reduce the credibility of his argument. The choice you selected would help #3’s argument (that the mutations are there at childbirth, but have effects that occur after reproducing age), not scientist #2’s.</p>
<p>@loveny It would have to be more mutations in older age because if there were MORE in the older age than the younger age, then somewhere in between, the mutations increased, supporting the scientist’s argument that mutations increase as people age. If there were more mutations at a younger age, then there would be less at an older age, which doesn’t support his hypothesis.</p>
<p>I can see that you were thinking that if there were more at the younger age, then the mutations would grow on themselves and result in even more mutations, but that’s the wrong way to look at the question in this case, since you were supposed to compare older vs younger age.</p>
<p>what would like a -7 on the science be for this time?</p>
<p>It looks like the curve will be lenient.</p>
<p>@loveny 28-30</p>
<p>Pretty much all of you were saying that you got 3+ years for the question about how long the average temp was above 1 or whatever. I think you missed a key part of the question though. It asked for how long AFTER THE ERUPTION the average temp was above 1. Well the eruption didn’t occur until the 3rd-ish (out of 5 i believe?) year, so the correct answer would be 2-3 years. The chart only lasted approx. 2.5 years after the eruption occurred.</p>
<p>I put 1 to 2 years for that one…I am pretty sure that was right.
@hotpinkalicia is right, but i still got 1-2.</p>
<p>i caught that - it also said january of that year, so if you started immediately and counted, the chart ended at right about 3. i’m almost positive it was at least 3.</p>
<p>I put 2-3 years…i hope thats right</p>
<p>I thought it erupted in like 1986 and then it went up until 1988ish when it hit 1.</p>
<p>On the chart it didnt look like it hit 3 years…i thought it stopped right before then…hmm idk, i wish they used a better picture for that :/</p>
<p>Anybody else get 1-2?</p>
<p>It was definitely at least 3 years. There were 3 years displayed after the eruption, and even if it was like 2.5, you can’t assume that that it would suddenly dip go from +3<em>C all the way down to <1</em>C when there was no indication of a regression towards the end of the 3rd year. I’m pretty sure the ACT doesn’t roll like that.</p>
<p>@loveny - It never dipped below 1 after the eruption.</p>
<p>at least 3 years ftw!</p>
<p>i might have counted wrong, but i know i didn’t see it at first so i went back and recounted and still got 3. it was still pretty stable way above 1C so it seems logical that it was at least 3.</p>
<p>I think that was a crappy question because there was a lot of speculation 
I wish they would have made the graph a little clearer</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know! -10 char</p>