<p>my test lady was really nice, she let me go back and check every form and let me erase stray marks!</p>
<p>if anyone is interested, on the practice tests:</p>
<p>test#--raw--scaled
sparknotes
1---41---550
2---55---640
princeton review
3---60---670
4---55---640</p>
<p>don't mind me, i'm just thinking out loud</p>
<p>futureEE: i would call them. i imagine they'll grade your test and that low score will be what you get unless you have it corrected. worst case, you get your scores back and then you pay for it to be regraded. best case, you call and maybe have it changed before it goes through machines? i'm speculating</p>
<p>√1337 teach me</p>
<p>what do u think uis the maximum amount of wrong I can get in order to geta 700+ on Bio-M??</p>
<p>does anyone remember the snake question in E?</p>
<p>In M, i think there will definetly be a lower curve rate cause M was supposedly "easier"?</p>
<p>I'll be calling CB first thing tommorow to find out about this. Man I really feel like an idiot for (potentially) messing that up. :-P</p>
<p>On the brighter side, Bio-M seemed pretty good for me, but as everyone has said the first few on the core were tricky.</p>
<p>The first few were hard cause there were a type of question, not the question itself. Its easy to fall into temptation and do I and II or I,II,or III... (it sucks big time). Also there was a question about xylem and phloem with a weird graph anyway..</p>
<p>For the question and finding out the evolutionary connection between 2 beings, why wasnt the radioactive carbon dating the most useless? Amino acid is useful for comparison..imo. I put radio active carbon</p>
<p>yes, it was radioactive dating. Amino acid sequencing with cytochrome c is extremely useful. :D</p>
<p>are there such variations as chloroplast a and chloroplast b? i don't remember anything of the sort, so i marked it as the answer to an EXCEPT, least likely, NOT, etc. type of question...</p>
<p>so now it's radioactive dating? what is and what's the difference between amino acid and protein sequencing?</p>
<p>There is no difference. Both mean trying to figure out the amino acid sequence and then comparing to another species amino acid sequence. Of course you just try to compare one protein. Carbon radio active dating sounds really fishy cause it just tells the time period in which organisms lived in. You can't actually tell if there is ANY relationship between these organisms except the time.</p>
<p>well i figured evolution = very slow, long-term process, and a one its sources of proof/evidence is fossils. fossils are great but it'd be better if we could date them, so we could learn more about evolution, tell if species evolved by divergence or convergence, how long di- or convergent evolution takes, etc</p>
<p>i wish i could read the question again. at any rate, i'm pretty sure fossil dating is relevant and useful, but if amino and protein sequence observation are basically the same...idk. are you sure one isn't more and one less useful than the other? are we able to examine proteins and aminos equally? ....don't think that's it... i'm sure neither sticks around in fossils. i answered protein because amino acid sequencing just sounds more detailed considering they make up protein.</p>
<p>"You can't actually tell if there is ANY relationship between these organisms except the time." good point. i'd respond that we would if we find the fossils close in distance (duh), but fossilation is rare, uncommon, and uncontrollable. we can observe living organisms at will. rats.</p>
<p>So...just for clarification it was....</p>
<p>Radioactive Carbon Dating</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>Anaphase I?</p>
<p>the LAST question on the sagebrush and the other tree was about how another has sagebrush at a higher elevation. Did you say I and II (something about nutrients and something about water retention) or what?</p>
<p>i put something like the trees had a more specific niche. i pretty sure i misunderstood that whole section. nutrient and water retention sound good. pretty sure i put those--in regards to something asking about soil, right? wasn't there another question or two?</p>
<p>any others?</p>
<p>how many questions can you get wrong and still get a 700+ or 700.</p>
<p>I estimate about a 300 for me..
I guess taking AP Bio 3yrs ago, reading PR Bio prep book, and taking a few PR practice tests just didnt cut it.
lol
I fail at life.. :(</p>
<p>At least I'm confident I got in the 700's for Math IC :)</p>
<p>chloroplast a and chloroplast b</p>
<p>looks like im too late :( I was looking for a site like this yesterday as soon as I came back from the test.</p>
<p>I definitely got radioactive carbondating for that question, and anaphase I. The question about water movement in a plant I put that one as pH . I narrowed it down to pH and root pressure</p>
<p>Not sure what I put for the sagebrush though</p>
<p>The test itself wasn't too bad, I actually though the root part was easy ( I was studying the plant section in Barron's the day b4</p>
<p>what do you guys think u got on the test? I think I scored a low 700s, but I ommitted 3 since I ran out of time for the last 2, and i didn't answer the one with the Chappral. I might have made stupid mistakes at the end too, since I ended up answering two questions per minute for the last 10 minutes of the test. I took the E btw</p>
<p>you guys make Biology sound so hard....</p>
<p>o_o</p>
<p>
[quote]
I estimate about a 300 for me..
I guess taking AP Bio 3yrs ago, reading PR Bio prep book, and taking a few PR practice tests just didnt cut it.
lol
I fail at life..</p>
<p>At least I'm confident I got in the 700's for Math IC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't even have AP Biology and I was able to pull off a pretty decent score (770). I read PR with a splash of Barrons.</p>
<p>how many questions can you get wrong and still get a 700+ or 700.</p>