<p>wheww!!!! that was a lot of typing, now can someone please help me systematically answerin this with the best method, i purposely left out the answers to see if u can get them</p>
<p>Passage:
You have seen them in movies: scientists who
are infallible and coldly objective- little more
than animated computers in white lab coats. They
take measurements and record results as if the
collection of data were sole object of their
lives. The assumption: If one gathers enough facts
about something, the relationships between those
facts will spontaneously reveal themselves.
Nonsense!
The myth of the infallible scientist evaporates
When one thinks of the number of great ideas in
Science whose originators were correct in general
but wrong in detail. The English physicist John
Dalton (1766-1844) gets credit for modern atomic
Theory, but his mathematical formulas for calcu-
lating atomic weights were incorrect. The Polish
astronomer Copernicus, who corrected Ptolemys
ancient concept of an Earth-centered universe,
nevertheless was mistaken in the particulars of the
planets orbits.
Luck, too has played a determining role in
scientific discovery. The French chemist Pasteur
demonstrated that life does not arise spontane-
ously from air. But it may have been luck that he
happened to use an easy-to-kill yeast and not the
hay bacillus that another, long-forgotten, investiga-
tor had chosen for the experiment. We now
know that hay bacillus is heat-resistant and grows
even after the boiling that killed Pasteurs yeast. If
Pasteur had used the hay bacillus, his proof
would not have materialized.
Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics,
epitomizes the humanness of the scientist. Plant
hybridization intrigued and puzzled Mendel, an
Augustinian monk with some training in mathe-
matics and the natural sciences. He had read in
the professional literature that crosses between
certain species regularly yielded many hybids
with identical traits; but when hybrids were
crossed, all kinds of strange new combinations of
traits cropped up. The principle of inheritance,
if there was one, was elusive.
Mendel had the basic idea that there might be
simple mathematical relationships among plants
in different generations. To pursue this hypothesis,
he decided to establish experimental plots in the
monastery garden an Brunn, raise a number of vari-
eties of peas, interbreed them, count and classify
the offspring of each generation, and see whether
any reliable mathematical ratios could be deduced.
After many years of meticulously growing, har-
vesting, and counting pea plants, Mendel thought
he had something worth talking about. So in, 1865,
he appeared before the Brunn Society for the Study
of Natural Science, reported on his research, and
postulated what have since come to be called the
Mendelian laws. Society members listened politely
But, insofar as anybody knows, asked few questions
and engaged in little discussion. It may even be
that, as he proceeded, a certain suspicion emerged
out of the embarrassed silence. After all, Mendel
lacked a degree and had published no research.
Now, if Pasteur had advanced this idea
.
Mendels assertion that separate and distinct
elements of inheritance must exist, despite the
fact that he couldnt produce any, was close to
asking the society to accept something on faith.
There was no evidence for Mendels hypothesis
other than his computations; and his wildly uncon-
ventional applications of algebra to botany made it
difficult for his listeners to understand that those
computations were the evidence.
Mendel undoubtedly died without knowing that
His findings on peas had indeed illuminated a well-
nigh universal pattern. Luck had been with him in
his choice of which particular traits to study. We
now know that groups of genes do not always act
independently. Often they are linked, their effect
being to transmit a package of traits. Knowing
nothing about genes, let alone the phenomenon
of linkage, Mendel was spared failure because the
traits that he chose to follow were each controlled
separately. * The probability of making such a
happy choice in random picks is only about 1 in
163!</p>
<ul>
<li>Some scientists believe that Mendel actually did have some idea of linkage and did choose traits purposefully.</li>
</ul>
<p>I did method number 1 and got 720 did number 3 and got 600.</p>
<ol>
<li>A</li>
<li>D</li>
<li>D
24 .c(?)</li>
<li>C</li>
<li>D
27 .b
28 .b
29 .e
30 .c</li>
</ol>
<p>Methods:
1) Read it straight, than go to the questions while lookin back at the reading
2)Look at questions and answers, read passage, than go back to questions
3)Read just questions, read passage, than go back to the questions
4)Read the excerpt, than the first and last sentence in each paragraph to get the gist, than read the passage, than the questions
5)Read the excerpt, than the first and last sentence in each paragraph to get the gist, than read the questions, than the paragraph
6)Skim read excerpt, than read the last paragraph, than questions
7)Preview, read the passge, Than answer questions in chronological order, which doesn't make sense, b/c opinions can change a lot during the whole passage, which can alter the answer</p>
<p>Methods: Popular by choice</p>
<p>Method 1)2 Shadowofanenigma (800s), Lakshya M(720)
Method 2)1 lil_Killer129 (400s)
Method 3)2 Excel, Lakshya M (600)
Method 4)
Method 5)
Method 6)
Method 7)
Other Methods)3
CoolJay136:
I know it differs for everyone, but I personally ignore the questions until I have fully read the passage. I quickly glance at the excerpt at the top then closely read the passage and then answer the questions. I find it very useful when questions give specific lines to refer to since that saves time and allows you to read the passage without running out of time. While reading, I try to underline if I spot something that may be helpful later. (750)</p>
<p>Julina: I read the entire passage first then look at the Qs one by one. Usually, I don't even have to refer back to the reading because I remember the context. Unless, of course it asks for specific lines and such.</p>
<p>Sethblue:If you ask me, the ebst method to get answers right in CR is to choose the most neutral option, the one that is least difficult to attack and least extreme. Personally, I peruse the passage first and then refer back to them as I answer the questions. All you really need is a snese of the gist of teh passage and you get an idea of which answers are right.</p>
<p>Gista369 are you planning on giving the answers to CR questions you asked.</p>
<p>Well I use method 1, (got an 800) I personally feel that it really depends upon your reading speed; I mean for me, after a bit of practise with the SAT type of questions, I normally get through a CR section in anything from 5 mins to 15 depending on the level of difficulty.</p>