<p>Can anyone link to the one in the BB?</p>
<p>a bit confused again
is -7 raw (80 - 7)
or 7 wrong and so ( (80 - 7) - (7 *.25) )</p>
<p>Sorry but I’d like to understand :)</p>
<p>I don’t have the link, but this is the one in the BB for Ecology. Molecular is very similar (almost the same)
80-800
79-800
78-800
77-800
76-790
75-780
74-780
73-770
72-770
71-760
70-750
69-750
68-740
67-730
66-730
65-720
64-720
63-710
62-710
61-700
60-690
59-690
58-680
57-680
56-670
55-670
54-660
53-650</p>
<p>^thats very helpful! thanks</p>
<p>^^ 10-15 blank and a 740 is very interesting.</p>
<p>Well, I’m not trying to make the curve sound harsh, I’m hoping for a curve that is anything but harsh lol. I don’t know, did anyone else who took yesterday’s test think that there will be a good curve?</p>
<p>I took the May one and got a 680, studied my butt off for the two months before this one and I think this one was DEFINITELY harder than that one. Like…way to many questions that had to do with the whole “How closely are these two species related”</p>
<p>Just my $0.02</p>
<p>has anyone reached a final answer to the question that dealt with the guinea pig at the beginning was it dominance or multiple alleles ?</p>
<p>i believe that was dominance, the offsprings were in a 3:1 ratio. Just my two cents.</p>
<p>I really hope there is a good curve, but since a lot of people took Bio M, the curve may not be as lenient.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, I totally agree, this test was pretty hard… sooo.</p>
<p>…curves are predetermined, atleast that’s how it works fr normal sat, the test takers don’t affect the curve</p>
<p>@lordofcenturies
Definitely dominance.</p>
<p>^ Are you sure? I thought the curve is determined by how the test takers perform on that particular test.</p>
<p>"…curves are predetermined, atleast that’s how it works fr normal sat, the test takers don’t affect the curve "
That’s absolutely bullcrap lol. The curve depends on how well ppl do on the test. If more ppl do bad on the test (presumably harder test), the more lenient the curve, respectively.</p>
<p>it wasn’t dominance because the parent generation consisted of two heterozygous black guinea pigs</p>
<p>it was def. not dominence, if it were something like a homozygouse dom. is bred with a homo recesive and all are dom then thats dominence but this one was alleles.</p>
<p>r u sure dancinggbear? i put alleles too. but im not sure… <em>gulp</em> hope you are right!!!</p>
<p>Well haha ‘sure’ is an interesting word… I would assume so because, at least in my mind it makes more sense, but it is imposible to say what CB was thinking about.</p>
<p>I feel that this ambiguity in the questions this year has caused a lot of problems.</p>
<p>another example was the one with the which is the closest related to each other. I put e.coli and humans because of their +/+ relationship but it could have ment genetically, or any other way…</p>
<p>lol…</p>
<p>"…curves are predetermined, atleast that’s how it works fr normal sat, the test takers don’t affect the curve "</p>
<p>Not at all. It’s called a “standardized” test for a reason. Raw scores are analyzed and then STANDARDIZED to match a normal curve (those of you who take stat know this). So the harder a test, the better the curve, and vice versa.</p>
<p>@spatel23</p>
<p>I’m positively absolutely sure that it was dominance. Multiple alleles doesn’t even make that much sense in this case, since that would usually correspond to more than 2 phenotypes. And in this case, dominance works perfectly regardless.</p>