<p>so... for the enzyme question, was it I and II? XP
or just II? </p>
<p>I'm sorry. You two are confusing me. @.@</p>
<p>lol. I forgot what the enzyme question was. haha</p>
<p>I talked to my Bio teacher about the Starlings question. The one about the most biological way of restricting the Starling population. She thought the answer was the virus one. I asked her if that wouldn't kill all the other birds, but she said nowadays, one can find a specific virus... so yeah... What do you guys think?</p>
<p>I put introducing new exotic species for the answer... although with much doubt.... I guess it's wrong!</p>
<p>Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrghhhhhhhh!</p>
<p>The answer to the enzyme question was I and II.</p>
<p>Ditsy, the choice for that question said that the scientists would release a virus specific to the starlings, so yes it would definitely work.</p>
<p>the starling question said BIOLOGICAL control, a virus is not considered to be alive. so, it was the tropical species.</p>
<p>I asked my AP bio teacher and she agreed with me that it was introduce new species albeit all the choices were dumb.</p>
<p>okay the starling questin has been the pinnacle of debate. i think someobdy should contact CB abut the question being ambiguous or something.</p>
<p>me personally, i put down a new species.</p>
<p>yea man...screw that question...it was just so freakin messed up...i put like...trap and relocate....like putting them in a new area where they can fit in in competition....cuz i thought introducing a new species would bring new problems...that new species would maybe take on the role of the starlings who knows....and also for the question about boiling a green leaf in alcohol...wut does that do? in the 2nd part of the qeustion...it was tested with iodine...for starch....SO.....did boiling leaf w/ alcohol hydrolyze glucose into starch or sumthing? anyone sill remeber? thanks</p>
<p>it got rid of the chlorophyll</p>
<p>when u hydrolyze carbohydrates, you break startch into glucos, not the other way around. So the answer would be to remove the chlorophyll, but i dont know how that helps the experiment</p>
<p>i think the iodine tests for starch so if you break down the chlorophyll and the thus the starch, you would be making sure that the iodine will only stain starch that was not part of the plant before</p>
<p>wait what was the enzyme and temperature question again?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I talked to my Bio teacher about the Starlings question. The one about the most biological way of restricting the Starling population. She thought the answer was the virus one. I asked her if that wouldn't kill all the other birds, but she said nowadays, one can find a specific virus... so yeah... What do you guys think?
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure injecting viruses into a population is considered unethical and therefore not a plausible plan
Furthermore, there is a chance that the virus can mutate into a human strain that causes an epidemic.</p>
<p>if you read the answer choice it said a virus specific only to starlings therefore a mutation isnt a legit concern</p>
<p>Skate4gold27, if the question had said BIOTIC control, then it would have meant alive, but it didn't, it said BIOLOGICAL so therefore a virus can be included.</p>
<p>I don't know if any of you have heard this story, but a while back 12 pairs of rabbits were introduced to Australia. Pretty soon the continent was overrun by hundreds of millions of rabbits and native species were dying because the rabbits were to much competition. In 1950 the myxoma virus was introduced to kill the rabbits and keep the population under control for a little while. And, guess what? It worked! Obviously natural selection favored the surviving rabbits that had the gene for survival, so the rabbit population boomed again. In 1995 a new virus was introduced, and this is what the government will keep doing until a better way to eliminate the rabbits is found. As you can see, introducing a virus is NOT unethical! So scientists would not have objections, especially since the virus introduced to the starling population would be SPECIFIC to those particular birds.</p>
<p>As I have said in previous posts, introducing a new exotic species is not the answer to the problem. If another species of rabbit were introduced to Australia, wouldn't there be 2 Very Big Problems, instead of 1? The same goes for the starlings.</p>
<p>I know many of you will not agree with me, but personally I did not find the question difficult or tricky and therefore not worth complaining to CB about.</p>
<p>Let me try and explain why the answer was introduce new species:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If a virus is introduced, some Starlings will not be killed, leading to a superbreed of virus-resistant Starlings.</p></li>
<li><p>These superbreeds will then repopulate.</p></li>
<li><p>Therefore a virus is only a temporary solution.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>what was up with all the ducks?
there were ducks in every answer choices.. haha</p>
<p>I was glancing over this thread and saw on the beggining people worried about the curve... well i took it in may and got a 720- i was 77 percentile... dunno if that'll help.</p>
<p>perfectly true, but can one really assume that some are immune? isnt it equally valid in the context of the question to say that none are immune?</p>
<p>i had a tutor who said that with these types of questions, one cant really use outside information as these assumptions tend to be wrong.</p>
<p>afruff23, if you read my post, you'll notice that I did take into account that the starlings will become resistant to the virus.</p>