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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For the no. of bases per gene question i doubled it because the number given in the article was for base pairs and the question said bases. I spent about 10 mins out of the time i had spare just pondering whether i was just overthinking it or whether they were trying to trick us. Anyone else pick up on it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mechanism)
    What did people put for the concentration gradent (Na+/K+) like how proteins in the membrane restore the ions to the levels shown in the table? Also, the whole habituation and twin studies stuff what did people write? When will we get to see the paper?
    Talked about how the proteins are responsible for pumping the ions in/out. Na+ ions are pumped out of the neurone via active transport and K+ ions diffuse back into the neurone down their concentration gradient... went along those lines basically

    Habituation? what part?

    Twin Studies
    - basically talked about identical/non identical twins
    - comparison between the two
    - looking at genetic similarities/differences
    - if similar between identical twins and different between non-identical then it is nature
    - if not then it is nurture

    We won't see the paper unless someone gets hold of it and posts it but highly unlikely
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nemo9000)
    For the no. of bases per gene question i doubled it because the number given in the article was for base pairs and the question said bases. I spent about 10 mins out of the time i had spare just pondering whether i was just overthinking it or whether they were trying to trick us. Anyone else pick up on it?
    I halved it because they were paired but I don't know! thought that question was complete trickery tbh
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mechanism)
    What did people put for the concentration gradent (Na+/K+) like how proteins in the membrane restore the ions to the levels shown in the table? Also, the whole habituation and twin studies stuff what did people write? When will we get to see the paper?
    Talked about repolarisation from the depolarized neuron and how 2 K ions are exchanged for 3 sodium ions by the sodium potassium pump which is a transport protein, sodium cannot move through the membrane as it is too big whilst potassium can still move through the membrane
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LThomas694)
    Same with me, I feel like most of the unit 5 paper was good but that cross cultural studies and the article questions really threw me off and I felt that I wouldn't be able to answer them properly even if I had the textbook with me, whereas unit 4 I felt better about it I just thought it was really time pressured and there was a lot of synoptic stuff that I thought was really irrelevant. I don't think the unit 4 paper was fair at all especially how it was basically copied from that 2014 IAL paper, so at least that unit 5 paper was actually well written

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hi, I agree, the unit 5 paper was a nice paper. What did you put about how to carry out the cross-cultural emotional response to facial expressions and how to make it valid- 2 then 4 marker. Threw me as well. I was like take one group from Asia and one group from the UK that are the same age, gender etc with different ethnic/ cultural backgrounds and look at facial expressions on images!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mechanism)
    What did people put for the concentration gradent (Na+/K+) like how proteins in the membrane restore the ions to the levels shown in the table? Also, the whole habituation and twin studies stuff what did people write? When will we get to see the paper?
    It was basically to do with the refractory period where repolarisation occurs. How the voltage dependent channels open to let potassium ions in and how sodium in ins are actively pumped out. You could even mention hyperpolarisation. Habituation is to do with the presynaptic membrane becoming less permeable to calcium ions and so less neurotransmitters are packed in vesicles to exocitose out into the synaptic cleft. Therefore less will bind to receptors on post synaptic members be and less action potentials are sent through. At least this is the sort of stuff I put and the twin study had me messed up.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sssssshh)
    It was basically to do with the refractory period where repolarisation occurs. How the voltage dependent channels open to let potassium ions in and how sodium in ins are actively pumped out. You could even mention hyperpolarisation. Habituation is to do with the presynaptic membrane becoming less permeable to calcium ions and so less neurotransmitters are packed in vesicles to exocitose out into the synaptic cleft. Therefore less will bind to receptors on post synaptic members be and less action potentials are sent through. At least this is the sort of stuff I put and the twin study had me messed up.
    I mentioned hyper polarisation and Na+/K+ pumps but nothing about refractory period! yeah that twin study was not good
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What was the part of the sarcomere that got smaller? I said C I think?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What did people get for the 3 mark question on how the three genes inhibited each other in sequence, their activity cycling regularly? And what did you understand by 'cycling regularly'?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by faheem97786)
    It wasnt not talking about ldopa in the gut it was about ldopa in the blood plasma
    oh no!
    that's probably true
    now that i think of it i cant even remember if i actually read the labels on the axis
    hopefully i got at least one mark
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Last years paper was a lot harder than this one I think. I think the grade boundaries will be a bit higher;
    63/4 - A*
    58/9 - A
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nemo9000)
    For the no. of bases per gene question i doubled it because the number given in the article was for base pairs and the question said bases. I spent about 10 mins out of the time i had spare just pondering whether i was just overthinking it or whether they were trying to trick us. Anyone else pick up on it?
    I had the same problem. I ended up not doubling it just because I think it would be unreasonable for them to expect us to notice it was pairs. Any idea on the right answer?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GiveShekels)
    I had the same problem. I ended up not doubling it just because I think it would be unreasonable for them to expect us to notice it was pairs. Any idea on the right answer?
    I made the same error too, I didn't double the number of base pairs and just walked down the road and went to my mum "aaah crap!" as I realised my mistake.
    I think they would probably only give a method mark to those of us that did that, but it's only 2 marks anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I got like 1100, saw it said 580,000 pairs but I thought that meant 580,000 bases on each DNA strand in the double helix, so the number of bases on one strand is still 580,000, so u divide that by 525 to get something around 1100? Also, I remember a question about the neurotransmitter being released across the synaptic cleft but I don't remember a question where you had to explain what happens to the Ca ions when the organism is habituated? Did I just read the question wrong or something?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsIP2016)
    I made the same error too, I didn't double the number of base pairs and just walked down the road and went to my mum "aaah crap!" as I realised my mistake.
    I think they would probably only give a method mark to those of us that did that, but it's only 2 marks anyway
    Are you sure we were supposed to?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GiveShekels)
    Are you sure we were supposed to?
    I honestly have no clue anymore haha.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsIP2016)
    I honestly have no clue anymore haha.
    God knows Haha lets just hope and move on
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How did people find the exam today then? A lot nicer than last weeks to say the least!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 32908)
    Basically, I analysed that sea level increased and pollen quantity increased after the volcanic eruption because on the right on the volcanic eruption everything increased but... I should have looked to the left of the volcanic eruption as that was afterwards...I was analysing the data before the volcanic eruption.

    I am so annoyed because I am not dumb at all, I understood and could do most of the other questions but that stupid question, I have done completely wrong so would have lost all marks from it.

    Does anyone remember how many marks that whole question was out of???

    Would I have gained any marks from that question at all?
    Think it was 4. You probably got half
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nemo9000)
    For the no. of bases per gene question i doubled it because the number given in the article was for base pairs and the question said bases. I spent about 10 mins out of the time i had spare just pondering whether i was just overthinking it or whether they were trying to trick us. Anyone else pick up on it?
    yep, I multiplied by 2 because it said 580000 base PIARS so I then divided that number by the value given in the question to get 2210 bases per gene or something like that I can't remember exactly
 
 
 
  • 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 rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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

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