Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What did people get for the MRSA question for the % increase? You had to find the year at which the numbers peaked which i thought was like 498 one for S.aurea (forgot the MRSA number!).. I did the difference which was like 1154 and divided by the smaller number which was 498 then X100. Is this right??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Was there any repetitions in the depth Bio paper from the breadth?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRealLBA)
    Was there any repetitions in the depth Bio paper from the breadth?
    No I don't think so! But the 6 markers weren't what I expected. Thought they were going to be better and proper biological processes like DNA replication, Protein Synthesis, Water's properties & functions.. etc. Really disappointed with that paper really. :unimpressed:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RadonGhost)
    Oh right :lol: Probably got it wrong either way

    Also, I think the textbook means within 5% significant difference is shown, so a value of 0.01-0.001 is in that range. I don't think it means use the 0.05 value in the table, not entirely sure though.
    Yeah my teacher also said to only use the 0.05 column
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbster1)
    What did people get for the MRSA question for the % increase? You had to find the year at which the numbers peaked which i thought was like 498 one for S.aurea (forgot the MRSA number!).. I did the difference which was like 1154 and divided by the smaller number which was 498 then X100. Is this right??
    The year was 2006 and the % increase was something like 3200 I think.

    I thought you only had to look at the MRSA values!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SusamS)
    The year was 2006 and the % increase was something like 3200 I think.

    I thought you only had to look at the MRSA values!
    Oh.. well for a percentage change I thought you had to use both values.. Maybe that's where I went wrong! So you used the 1993 number and 2006 number difference, then divided by the smaller number (498) to give you 3200??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbster1)
    Oh.. well for a percentage change I thought you had to use both values.. Maybe that's where I went wrong! So you used the 1993 number and 2006 number difference, then divided by the smaller number (498) to give you 3200??
    Yeah, I got 3204 but I had to round it to 3sf
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SusamS)
    Yeah, I got 3204 but I had to round it to 3sf
    Yes, that makes sense now. I got something like 232!!! Oops, just another thing I got wrong! Hated that paper so much! Anyone else with me?! :banghead:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbster1)
    Yes, that makes sense now. I got something like 232!!! Oops, just another thing I got wrong! Hated that paper so much! Anyone else with me?! :banghead:
    who isnt?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RadonGhost)
    Did you not read the table? The value of 13.834( or whatever) fell in the range from 0.01 and 0.001 p.
    You don't look where the value of 13.835 lies. You look at the p=0.05 and degrees of freed (3) and then use the critical value and see how far your value is from it telling you if its significant or not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RadonGhost)
    Oh right :lol: Probably got it wrong either way

    Also, I think the textbook means within 5% significant difference is shown, so a value of 0.01-0.001 is in that range. I don't think it means use the 0.05 value in the table, not entirely sure though.
    Trust me my teacher told me you use only p=0.05 to compare with. We did an exact question like it and thats what the mark scheme also said. I don't know why you use it but for biology it is. The other values are for different things not relevant to biology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbster1)
    No I don't think so! But the 6 markers weren't what I expected. Thought they were going to be better and proper biological processes like DNA replication, Protein Synthesis, Water's properties & functions.. etc. Really disappointed with that paper really. :unimpressed:
    Thank You! :} Just be happy you finished and can spend the day do something other than biology!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4nonymous)
    Trust me my teacher told me you use only p=0.05 to compare with. We did an exact question like it and thats what the mark scheme also said. I don't know why you use it but for biology it is. The other values are for different things not relevant to biology.
    Ah right OK, I was never taught this, seems strange, but fair enough
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    What did you all get for the one about the smooth muscle contracting?? It sounds really stupid saying this but I had no idea!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4nonymous)
    Trust me my teacher told me you use only p=0.05 to compare with. We did an exact question like it and thats what the mark scheme also said. I don't know why you use it but for biology it is. The other values are for different things not relevant to biology.
    No, it is relevant, I did this in psychology and the values are chances that the difference is due to chance. In biology and all other sciences really, we can usually accept that results are significant if we only allow 5% chance that the results are due to chance and there is really no significance. 0.001 would mean that theres a 0.1% chance it is due to chance so you could use that and say it is very significant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charlotte.P)
    What did you all get for the one about the smooth muscle contracting?? It sounds really stupid saying this but I had no idea!
    The smooth muscle contracting on the trachea means that there is resticted airflow to the the lungs and less cells are able to carry out efficient gas exchange.

    the mite answer is the chitin cartilage will collapse and there will be restricted airflow
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IntellectualBoss)
    No, it is relevant, I did this in psychology and the values are chances that the difference is due to chance. In biology and all other sciences really, we can usually accept that results are significant if we only allow 5% chance that the results are due to chance and there is really no significance. 0.001 would mean that theres a 0.1% chance it is due to chance so you could use that and say it is very significant.
    I'm just stating what my teacher told me and the fact that we did an exact question like it and the mark scheme only refers to 5%
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4nonymous)
    Trust me my teacher told me you use only p=0.05 to compare with. We did an exact question like it and thats what the mark scheme also said. I don't know why you use it but for biology it is. The other values are for different things not relevant to biology.
    because it's two standard deviation's worth
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IntellectualBoss)
    Name another that isn't controlled (1)
    Volume/drops of indicator on white tile

    Name one that is controlled (1)
    Time/intervals of testing solution

    Alternative what would happen as a result of chitin (1)
    -Mites may be vectors and cause disease
    -May bite through tracheoles and leak tracheal fluid (disrupt gaseous exchange)


    percentage increase of death from MRSA from 1993 to peak (2)
    -3140%
    1. Volume of indicator doesn't make a difference, since it's qualitative.
    Volume, I think if I done it correctly, was stated for substrate and enzyme. However substrate was only given as 5cm^3 with no concentration given so I think it must be the substrate concentration not kept same (enzyme concentration was given as a percentage.)
    2. Enzyme concentration (since only 4 factors of enzyme reactions... Sub/Enz Concentrations, Temp, pH.) everything else was changing except enz conc. But you may be right for mentioning time interval.

    3. I wrote: (those pathogen in Bee) may block the Tracheole (by bundling or travelling through smaller tracheole), preventing fluid ventilation of the tissue therefore dissolved gases cannot be exchanged -> Bee feels tired

    4. I got 670%
    Although almost all of my friends got similar to 3200%.
    One thing. It cannot be negative like in the answer since it's % Increase.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I got 670% by:Percentage for 1993Percentage for peak (which was year 2006 I think)Divide by smaller % and * by 100
    Edit: My bad, it was a hyphen not a negative sign in 3200%.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apixytm)
    1. Volume, I think if I done it correctly, was stated for substrate and enzyme. However substrate was only given as 5cm^3 with no concentration given so I think it must be the substrate concentration not kept same (enzyme concentration was given as a percentage.)
    2. Enzyme concentration (since only 4 factors of enzyme reactions... Sub/Enz Concentrations, Temp, pH.) everything else was changing except enz conc. But you may be right for mentioning time interval.

    3. I wrote: (those pathogen in Bee) may block the Tracheole (by bundling or travelling through smaller tracheole), preventing fluid ventilation of the tissue therefore dissolved gases cannot be exchanged -> Bee feels tired

    4. I got 670%
    Although almost all of my friends got similar to 3200%.
    One thing. It cannot be negative like in the answer since it's % Increase.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I got 670% by:
    Percentage for 1993
    Percentage for peak (which was year 2006 I think)
    Divide by smaller % and * by 100
    1.) If you read my answer correctly, you'll find that I said volume of indicator not substrate or enzyme which said a few drops indicating they didn't control it.
    3.)I guess you'd get the mark for that
    4.)That's not negative it's a dash, sorry if thats unclear.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.