<p>to whoever was posting about the pedigree question..</p>
<p>there's no such thing as a sex-linked recessive disease. if it is sex linked then it is x linked, and must be dominant.</p>
<p>i put autosomal recessive</p>
<p>but even if it said lower than normal...sample five only had a lower number of rbc meaning the oxygen carrying capacity of the rbc would still be normal compared to the other ones.</p>
<p>also i know we cant really predict the curve but is there any chance of this curve being 5? Cuz my friend took it in may and said he def missed 6 and maybe guessed 2 more but he ended up with 800</p>
<p>Wait huh?
If a person's rbc count is lower than normal, their ability to carry oxygen is compromised. I highly doubt that the question asked about the inherent ability for the rbcs to carry oxygen. I see where you would say "1 only" if it did. But the question clearly did not specify "which person's rbcs would carry less oxygen than normal." Rather, the question said "which person would carry less oxygen than normal." In this case, both 1 and 5 are correct.</p>
<p>And @CID2010, there in fact are diseases characterized as sex (or x)-linked recessive diseases. They are the more common sex-linked inherited diseases (like hemophilia/male pattern baldness). Sex-linked dominant are much more rare. If a disease is sex-linked, it has the option of being either one. But ya, the albinism one was autosomal recessive.</p>
<p>um CID, there is DEFINITELY such a thing as sex linked recessive -- the gene IS on the X chromosome, but it only dominates a non-existent allele on the Y in males.</p>
<p>it was autosomal recessive right? :/</p>
<ol>
<li>Graph going straight up (with logs in it): exponential</li>
</ol>
<p>Really? (in complete shock)</p>
<p>i thought exponential graphs had the Sigmoidal curve to it? </p>
<p>ill check on it</p>
<p>err guess not exactly an S-curve, but this is what I found? someone validate? </p>
<p>Wow..Did you guys happen to notice that the y axis was log(x)? That's why the graph was a straight line, but the data was growing exponentially. </p>
<p>If the y axis was normal and it was exponential, then yes, there would be a curve that looked like that.</p>
<p>the graph is exponential because of the log scale</p>
<p>are we sure about the succession question? (lichens vs. annual herbs)... i don't remember the word "plant" being in the question...</p>
<p>i didn't take the E test, but looking through it i saw that it was asking for the pioneer plant. or something.</p>
<p>it is herbs. lichens break down rocks into soil for herbs to grow. even without the word plants, lichens do not grow on soil, which they specifically told you, was the only thing not stripped away.</p>
<p>what was the last question on the ecology section? people say the answer was "the graph pointing down"...i don't remember anything about picking graphs...</p>
<p>Increasing amounts of the substance poisonous to the insects caused increasing amounts of them to die. It was perhaps the easiest problem in ecology (-:</p>
<p>How big will the curve probably be this time?
If i got 4 wrong, raw scroe 75, can i still get a 800?</p>
<p>yeaa i was wondering if a 70-72 raw score could get me a 750+</p>
<p>i think a 70-72 raw will get you an at least 730+</p>
<p>judging by the other comments, the curve might be better?</p>
<p>Whats a 67-69 Raw score?</p>
<p>what exactly does the curve do? does it just raise the raw score? can it lower it? and by how much?</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean by "raising" the raw score. The "curve" more or less refers to the raw-scaled score chart that CB uses for each testing date. So that its possible to get an 800 without getting every question right etc.</p>
<p>Definitely the raw score is not your scaled score...but the curve does alter what that conversion process is.</p>