<p>For one, in the heterozygous/homozygous passage, I got an answer of .16 by simply adding .32 and .64, thinking the remainder should add up to 1.0. Whether my reasoning was right, was this the right answer?</p>
<p>And for the passage preceding the one I mentioned, with the floating objects, I remember getting 80% of a 10<em>10</em>10 cube (i.e. 1000 cm3) so an answer of 800. Can anyone confirm/deny this</p>
<p>What was the answer to the one at the end of the last passage that was sink or float?</p>
<p>I went with sink. The water was heated to nearly 900 degrees (as water is heated, volume increases, and consequently density decreases). The density was decreasing and by the time specified all of the object would have been immersed in water.</p>
<p>Did people get 0.2 as a graph question? Not for the p q questions… but a different section. i cant remember the question 
but i remember being unsure about that… does that sound familiar to anyone?</p>
<p>CHS, exactly how does volume increase as a result of heating?</p>
<p>I’m not known for my chemistry lol but I thought about water boiling. I’ve never really seen anything float in boiling water and most things tend to sink in boiling water. Of course idk of this is right but it’s just some random explanation I thought of during the test</p>
<p>For the hypothesis passage with 4 different ones. What did you guys put for the question that gave a sentence and then asked whose view would it strengthen? I put 3</p>
<p>Was that the question where it said that something likes to bind to ach or ahc?</p>
<p>Then yeah I put 3</p>
<p>@relativelysmart, increased temperature directly variates with an increase in volume. Pressure, temperature, and volume are all interrelated. The ACT can’t assume that you know that information but that was my logic. If the volume is increased, the density will decrease (density= mass/volume). Hope that helps.</p>
<p>but werent both the object and water heated, therefore… it would float … idk though
lets talk about the conflicting viewpoints one? what was the question that asked about whose it would support? were their more than one?</p>
<p>I believe only the water was heated. Otherwise, that would be superfluous information.</p>
<p>Did you guys put the reason that it needs to be stir is because you of the stuff on the bottom???</p>
<p>This test was the hardest science test I’ve taken. I didn’t even get to do one of the passages</p>
<p>@Smarty1201</p>
<p>Unsure about that one, but I did pick the same answer. I figured if you were heating something, the heat will most likely be distributed evenly and wouldn’t need to be stirred.</p>
<p>^ I concur</p>
<p>What was the new that 1 and 4 agreed on?</p>
<p>^ I think that was stated in the first sentence of each of their hypothesis</p>
<p>^Something about something being absorbed</p>
<p>For the calorimetry heating experiment, I put the reason it needed to be stirred was for even distribution. The settling makes no sense as plain water being heated does not form a precipitate and neither will solid metal placed in as a conductor. That would imply mixing water and metal forms a solution, which it does not. When using a heating pad for calorimetry the stirring is necessary for even distribution because the temperature measurement must be completely accurate every 100 seconds in order to determine heat capacity for the metal. I could be wrong, but chemically the other answers don’t make sense. I got a 35 on science for the last ACT, hoping for a 36 this one and took AP chem this year so I’m fairly positive.</p>
<p>I Agree^^^^</p>