<p>This section raped me. But if the people on CC are saying this science was hard, it really must have been lol. I’m praying for a big curve since it was so hard, but I know that never happens for science.</p>
<p>Greenmamba20, I’m pretty sure there was dispute earlier in the thread about the answer being more vegetation. What leads you to that conclusion? I couldn’t find anything in the passage that mentioned vegetation, so I had to intuit the answer based on the erosion rates</p>
<p>Science kill me so bad!! I was getting decent scores on practice tests, but seriously, i think the Princeton Review’s was way easier compared to that. The biology and cars one got to me. I am praying that the curve will be generous. I am very sad. But on the plus side, i am a good guesser :)</p>
<p>dsus, you’re right. Nothing in the passage suggested vegetation. But I inferred that lightly grazed vs. highly grazed implied a difference in vegetation.</p>
<p>I also implied that highly grazed meant less vegetation.
Looking at these answers make me feel better about my science score. lol I just hope I didn’t completely screw up the cars one.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure B (which is what you claim to have selected) was more vegetation, and D was less vegetation. I know that because I probably spent a good minute staring at the problem. Not trying to rain on your parade.</p>
<p>Did anyone get greater than zero on the erosion question? I went in expecting a science test and ended up doing an analysis I would complete in my AP Chem class. :P</p>
<p>The vegetation one was d less vegetation which made it more likely to erode.
Highly grazed means less vegetation</p>
<p>I looked it up the more you graze less veggies</p>
<p>anyone who’s taken a basic biology course with an ecology section should know that. less vegetation = more erosion. the test doesn’t need to put that in there, you should be able to imply that…</p>
<p>actually my Bio course did not teach us that. And my school is one of the best in the country, so I doubt it’s the fault of a poor curriculum. But I did eventually intuit that in order to minimize erosion, you must have roots to keep the soil in place. Less vegetation = fewer roots = higher erosion, which was consistent with D. so no prior bio knowledge is really necessary IMHO</p>
<p>i really need to know some answersssss.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>last question, powder x (a or B) had the highest concentration of calcium carbonate because eggshell had a concentration of 25.5 or something (even though the other item it was being combined with had 0) whereas the other 2 items being combined only had 20 units or something. thus powder x had the higher concentration. can’t remember what the second part was looking at, any help?</p></li>
<li><p>one had to assume that the things were entirely made up or calcium carbonate, right? none of the other choices made any sense.</p></li>
<li><p>the rate of the reaction was increase with higher concentrations as the graph showed that it took less time to reach capacity with .05 g than it took to equal out when there was .01 g carbonate.</p></li>
<li><p>anyone remember what passage number 16 might have been in, the voltage passage, perhaps?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>@neuroscience number 2 is wrong. i know it wasnt that, if u list the choices ill choose the right one
edit: i think it was reaction ends by 14s</p>
<p>I think #2 was one had to assume that it was NOT made up of Calcium Carbonate AT ALL…I may be wrong though</p>
<p>That’s what I put Somewhere</p>
<p>I thought it was the hardest out of all four tests.</p>
<p>Although, I will say, I was happy there was no conflicting viewpoints!</p>
<p>No i agree with neuroscience, it had to be with ALL of CaCo3, neuroscience I am positive you and I are right.</p>
<p>but @panmit2, if it was made up of ALL CaCo3, then wouldn’t the results of adding more CaCo3 make the data inconclusive? That’s why you’d have to make sure that there was no CaCo3 present originally…</p>
<p>@somewhere I picked that “it had to be all made up of CaCo3” because the given chemical equation only assumed CaCo3 as an reactant… so the problem was only considering the reaction of CaCo3 and no other compound.</p>
<p>The answer was something along the lines of “CaCO3 was the only reactant that produced xxx” not “the samples were solely composed of CaCO3.” If you read the passage, there was a formula to calculate the amount of CaCO3 present in each of the trials; therefore, that was not an assumption that the scientists made prior to experimentation.</p>