<p>I thought anything above 720 was pretty good. ???</p>
<p>Oops. sorry I didn’t see your post SD6…:)</p>
<p>“but no to xombie, i’m pretty sure that if it was dominant, the disorder would have showed up somewhere else instead of just one person”</p>
<p>It was from the woman’s husband, who was outside of the family. (And therefore not on the pedigree.)</p>
<p>Ok, for Huntingtons.</p>
<p>I debated between 50 and 75 for some time, but realized that HH is so rare that it does not actually affect the probability.</p>
<p>They should’ve been more clear in the wording though.</p>
<p>The crustacean one - Don’t all arthropods have 6 six legs and aren’t crustaceans arthropods? :X</p>
<p>Also - A desert animal doesn’t like to get rid of what in its waste? Anyone remember that one?</p>
<p>Hope you guys did well! :)</p>
<p>I’ll be trying this stuff in October.</p>
<p>What was the answer to the third question in the PTH sequence? I put the body would start mechanisms to raise Calcium. And also, how sure are we that it’s lysosome and not ribosome.</p>
<p>@Xombie “It was from the woman’s husband, who was outside of the family.”</p>
<p>Right assumption. But if it was dominant and he carried the allele, then he would have to be shaded. But he wasn’t so its recessive, 5 and 6.</p>
<p>Ah that’s true.</p>
<p>Questions: </p>
<p>does ANYBODY remember the exact quesitons for the calcium vs PTH section? </p>
<p>Anybody who took Molecular…can we pleaseeeeee go over the MRNA and TAT graph …can we also go over the Oxygen being traced questions? (with the respiration questions)</p>
<p>@josmur and whoever else put 75%, for Huntington’s Disease a genotype of homozygous dominant kills the baby before it’s even born. Therefore, the afflicted dad’s genotype MUST be Hh.</p>
<p>Enzymes function outside of cells.</p>
<p>Tomato one was a virus. That was a legit experiment that actually was one of the first signs of viruses.</p>
<p>Tay-Sachs was lysosomes.</p>
<p>@Xombie, the answer for the pedigree was 5 and 6. If you actually examined the pedigree, the disease was CLEARLY recessive. How else could two unaffected parents have a child who was afflicted? And I’m pretty sure the woman’s husband was on the pedigree.</p>
<p>Calcium vs. PTH, I confess, was confusing. I put down decrease, increase, and body would activate mechanisms to increase blood calcium. I’m not sure whether a decrease in PTH would increase calcium, though. But I seem recall that the experimental info said the two’s concentrations were inversely related.</p>
<p>@baby98, you gotta give me the questions for me to answer them. Because I don’t feel like taking the effort to recall all of them.</p>
<p>Lol, the mRNA/TAT sequence of questions were basically the exact same as in test 2 of Princetone Review, yet it still confused me.</p>
<p>i barely remember but for the mrna graph…i put for the first one translation (was that right or was it transcription?) </p>
<p>then the second question was like…the reason for the lagging in the graph…and i said the TAT needs to time to assemble the mrna</p>
<p>and i think for the next question it said–what was proven in experiment II …i put answer choices I and III which said that TAT was a protein and that proteins to make mrna were present before the protein inhibitor came in</p>
<p>do you recall any of those?</p>
<p>andddd i think the last one to the mRNA one …( i dont’ remember the question) but i said that neither mRNA or TAT would be produced…? is that right</p>
<p>@desperate, The woman’s husband’s family was not on the pedigree. That was in response to someone else’s comment.</p>
<p>A decrease in PTH levels and no decrease in calcitonin levels would eventually at least result in a decrease in blood calcium levels…</p>
<p>I’m somewhat I annoyed I got the grassland vs. rain forest question wrong… :s</p>
<p>No arthropods like spiders have 8. They all have a chitinous exoskeleton. They both molt.</p>
<p>Was that from E? I didn’t take that one, but it would want to retain as much water as possible.</p>
<p>@Xombie, I had no outside knowledge of PTH going into the test… but from what I’ve gleaned from this thread, it seems that if you looked only at the question blood calcium levels should increase?</p>
<p>And the woman’s husband’s family might not have been on the pedigree, but the husband himself was still on it.</p>
<p>@baby, I’m pretty sure all four of your answers for the mRNA/TAT questions were correct. Congratulations! :)</p>
<p>The question asked which produces more of the world’s food.</p>
<p>I thought it was obvious that it was the grassland (farms, etc.) but apparently it [is] the rain forest.</p>
<p>the grasslands v. rainforest one is grasslands for sure
grasslands:
The deep, organic-rich soils built up by tall grass prairie are well adapted to agriculture - they retain fertility and good structure. The corn-belt from Kansas to Oklahoma is probably the best agricultural land in the world.</p>
<p>rainforest:
Fertility declines after clearance and the soils quickly become useless for agriculture. The loss of diversity, productivity and fertility make clearance a threefold tragedy.</p>