<p>@Remembrance I did the exact same thing as you did. Aren’t the trichomes (spiky things lol) supposed to be an adaptation to the presence of herbivores? Therefore the density of trichomes is dependent on the presence of herbivores? </p>
<p>If the independent was density of trichomes, what could the control possibly be? </p>
<p>@BunnyMonster idk… no trichomes at all? i feel like that doesn’t make sense. I, along with like everyone else in the class, got what you got as well… so idk</p>
<p>could it possibly be IV = density of trichomes, DV = number of surviving plants? what could control be there? uh</p>
<p>I have a question: I completely screwed up the ectotherm FRQ (we never explicitly covered thermoregulation in my class…whoops). My argument, hopelessly flawed I realize now, was that the organism was expending more energy to keep it’s body at a stable homeostatic temperature because it was producing more oxygen at a higher temperature. Would they still give me at least a consolation point for saying something that semi-made sense even though it was wrong? Also, on the question about the field, I said it would reduce plant biodiversity/abundance by increasing density-dependent limitations, and the chemical treatments/water would keep the grass supply constant and reduce periodic fluctuations of animal populations around their carrying capacity because of a steady food source (I put in paentheticals this assumed the chemicals were non-toxic). Anyone able to shed some wisdom on how horribly I did?</p>
<p>The plant hair density ( can’t say actual name due to auto correct) changed when plants were applied to a selective pressure (herbavors) over generations. When something changes due to a selective pressure it is the dependant variable.</p>
<p>@Wittgenstein4435 </p>
<p>your logic about endoderm and using more energy to maintain homeostasis is exactly what i said, and my graph below was a straight line.</p>
<p>at this point maybe they’ll accept either, as long as you give a proper justification. i think it said “describe a thermoregulation method…” instead of “describe THE method”</p>
<p>Most people picked endotherm, as did I. Hopefully this question was just worth 3 marks and that I was able to pull out a single point for just talking about how an endotherm maintains internal temp.</p>
<p>I didn’t actually use the word endotherm–that’s how bad I blanked.</p>
<p>I said ectotherm because as temperature goes down, oxygen consumption goes down, so the animal hibernates in the short term, as snakes and lizards do, which then need to bask in the sunlight to warm themselves up. I said endotherm at first but I didn’t understand why an animal would need to use more oxygen in hot temperatures. What could it do, sweat? That doesn’t really use much oxygen. Sure, if oxygen use increased in cold weather, we can attribute the increased O2 levels to shivering and the oxygen used by the muscles, but then the graph would need to be negatively sloping instead of positively. So I said ectotherm.</p>
<p>FRQ 1 was basically 3 bar graphs with error bars of 2 SD. The second part of that was asking which two populations are statistically significant and it was those that didn’t have their error bars overlap, because the mean are within that 95% confidence range, so if their aren’t in that range, they are statistically significant. If you took AP Stats you’ll understand this as it’s the same as the p-value confidence intervals and hypothesis tests.</p>
<p>I said the same thing about the ectotherm question and now I’m pretty sure it’s wrong…but if you look at past years’ frqs, sometimes you just get points for prediction and justification, and there’s no certain prediction that you have to make as long as you can reasonably support it (Ex: 2013 frq 1) </p>
<p>hoping for that five!</p>
<p>P.S. i made an excel spreadsheet that can calculate your overall score based on the grading of last years exam, if anyone wants it</p>
<p>Last thing: anyone know if it’s permissible to use examples to illustrate a point even if it’s not called for? For genetic variation, I explained that a mix genotypes have to exist in the first place for one to be selected for or against in natural selection. I realized I wasn’t wording it particularly well (tired, stressed, etc.), so I tried to further illustrate my point with the example of antibiotic resistance. If that helps clarify what I meant, will they give me points or just ignore anything not directly relevant to the question?</p>
<p>@Remembrance, no they haven’t even graded them yet. They make the scoring guidelines based on the most popular correct answers when they receive all the test booklets.</p>
<p>@Wittgenstein4435 I don’t think your examples would give you points, but if the example proves that you understand the concept, that should get you the point ( if your logic doesn’t do it enough). That’s what my AP Teacher told us (she grades FRQ’s). But she also told us to never ever use bar graphs, so take her advice with a grain of salt. </p>
<p>@CercaTrova I hope you’re right. Looking at the 2013 FRQ guidelines, the answers were all pretty obvious. Hopefully, this year’s rubric will be as gracious. </p>
<p>Never use bar graphs? What?</p>
<p>BunnyMonster, did my original sentence ( a mix of genotypes have to exist in the first place for one to be selected for or against in natural selection) sound coherent enough to answer the question (I guess technically alleles would be more accurate but oh well, I might have said characteristics to sum up after my example)? </p>
<p>i would think that they have a grading rubric prior to the test, no? not make it up on the spot?</p>
<p>@Wittgenstein4435 Was that the question about why variation is crucial to evolution? Sounds perfect, actually. Again, last year’s rubric shows really basic answers, so I don’t think you should stress so much about specific wording. </p>
<p>It seems like most people had form O on here. I wonder how the different forms get distributed? Perhaps by region? Either way it’s weird that there’s so much variation between the form difficulty level, it seems.</p>
<p>Alright, let’s hope they don’t care to much about specifically mentioning alleles. Thanks.</p>
<p>is it bad that i didn’t specifically label step 1-4 in the immune response. i just mentioned wat each part did.</p>