<p>Well.. idk.. i probably got that one wrong.</p>
<p>introducing a virus is gonna kill pretty much all the birds, whereas if you do competition, then not all them are gonna die</p>
<p>virus = death, not control</p>
<p>Nikki, the goal is not to save the starlings, it is to eliminate the species in competition with the native birds. Besides, there are so many birds that the virus will not harm them all.</p>
<p>so no one's got that master list? lol</p>
<p>If the virus won't harm them at all, why introduce one to control the population? Also, because of natural selection, the virus would probably eliminate like 95% of the population, with 5% remaining which are immune to the virus. That 5% would demonstrate the founder effect and would repopulate the starling population. Then, you would have stronger more persistent starling population and be back where you started. I put introduce a new species, but none of them sound very valid.</p>
<p>Rachel, the virus will harm many of them, but it won't be over night. Introducing a new species will cause problems of its own. If the new species thrives, like the starlings did, then the population of new birds will explode and then there will be 2 exotic species competing with the native birds for resources and the problem will be twice as bad. Introducing the virus will enable scientists to keep the population under control long enough for native species to recover, and for the scientists to figure out a new ways to control the starlings.</p>
<p>a good answer choice would have been to make the males sterile...but alas</p>
<p>I'm not sure. =/
I just hope that skipping 3 and missing a couple ( I think at most five?) would get me a 750. <em>praying</em> lol</p>
<p>No if you have 2 species competing, less of both would survive, helping the native bird population</p>
<p>I really hope its the introduce new species one...
Can't afford to miss more problems.</p>
<p>Doubledian, which one are you saying is correct?</p>
<p>nikkigirl12? how many problems have you missed so far? you seemed to have missed like 2. lol</p>
<p>LMAO are you serious? No i've missed 10+
I wish I'd missed 2....
I skipped about 5 too.
lmao the worst part is i have no idea which curve to trust, PR (wich is harsh) or CB (which is prob more accurate)</p>
<p>oh i know! PR is very very harsh. I think kaplan and CB are accurate. =/</p>
<p>I hope they are lmfao</p>
<p>lol.
They better be or I will be retaking the SAT II more than likely .lol</p>
<p>which cb curve are you talking about? i took an 02 CB test, got eight wrong, and got a 780.</p>
<p>I want to retake it and try to get 700+ but i still dk if i should take bio or something else, like chem (try to self study). idkkkkkkkk, i wanna cancel too but still</p>
<p>I hope everybody thought it was hard because i at least want a 680ish</p>
<p>^ nikki: you could get a 700+ if you missed 10 i think? couldn't you..i'm sure the curve is lenient b/c a lot of ppl are confused about stuff. lol
ac37? O_O REALLY? lol I'd hope that the curve is that easy.</p>
<p>the curve is that easy in the barrons book</p>
<p>^ yeah, Barron's has a super easy curve compared to PR and Kaplan.</p>