<p>@tigerash The question asked if different food intake would have any effect
I put women for the same reason ^</p>
<p>Yes but it was talking about SOLID food… so why would that have an effect if the study was measuring affect of cola/caffeine or whatever it was?</p>
<p>If the food intake wasn’t controlled for women, isn’t there still a chance for variability?</p>
<p>Quick question about the one on fighting scientists where the answer was scientistis 1 and 2. Does anyone remember if that letter was B/G?</p>
<p>doctorknow96; It’s because the human females’ diets were not controlled. They could have (hyperbolizing here) ingested 100 pills a day that deliberately weaken bone sturdiness and the scientists would not have known. The rats were fed controlled diets so their was no deviation for the results (they all ate very similar diets aside from the cola).</p>
<p>what did you guys get for that question talking about Q and ions? One of the answer choices was 1) the ion has a charge of 2.5 or 3) a part of the ion has a charge of +3 and the other part of the ion has a charge of +2 or something like that. I chose the first one but i think i’m wrong :/</p>
<p>I had that part of the ions were ionized to +2 while the remainder were ionized to +3</p>
<p>I don’t know what happened to me during the science section but I totally messed up. I think I did well, but my time management was awful. I skipped the fighting scienctists passage and never had time to get to it so I guessed on those seven (I bubbled in B/G for each one). Wat do you guys think my score will be? I answered all the other questions and am yet to find one on cc that I’ve gotten wrong, but it’s still possible I missed a couple.</p>
<p>Please give your honest thoughts!</p>
<p>The Science sections seemed pretty straight forward with exception to parts of the last section. I was also surprised that the arguing scientists section had four scientists. At least they were straight forward for the most part with exception to a couple of the questions.</p>
<p>Last section, don’t remember the question, but the answers I were deciding between were “.35-.47 (or something)” or “.70 or above.”</p>
<p>Anyone know the answer?</p>
<p>I chose the lowest answer, which I believe was less than .35.</p>
<p>I put .70 or above as the Q value for trial 7 was 1, and the lowest Q value in table #2 was 2, so therefore whatever had a Q value of 1 had to have a higher R value than that of Q value 2.</p>
<p>@amplified, i put lower than 0.35</p>
<p>Same as Raye, which was less than .35. If you followed the patterns you would see it would be less than what it was so it was less than .35 (80 percent sure).</p>
<p>Last question in 4 science arguing passage - Was it 5 or 10g and why. I put A which was 5g because it would bounce off the walls</p>
<p>I had 10g on that one because there would be more He atoms bouncing, thereby increasing the pressure on the walls. (at least that was my reasoning)</p>
<p>i got the same answer as @rayedrum</p>
<p>I thought that too but it would burn faster because less to burn allowing more to bump around ultimately creating more heat…but I def see how that could be right.</p>
<p>@jags: I don’t remember combustion ever being apart of that question. Did I just totally skip over that part of the question?</p>
<p>I just used what I learned in AP chem this year. More moles = more collisions.</p>
<p>I think you are right Raye. I had to rush this question didnt have time to really analyze it…
Goodbye 36 science unless curve =[</p>