x Turn on thread page Beta

# F215 - Revision thread 13th June 2011 watch

1. (Original post by MoMatrix)
I wrote some **** to do with making the numbers of ladybird into percentages as the number of ladybird were different from altitudes.

Yeah, that's what I put. Plus when you convert the results in the table to percentages, you can see that his 'conclusion' in the next part of the question is rubbish because all the altitudes have similar percentages.
2. (Original post by bangla_man)
go on facebook and search for "F215 Ecology paper 13 may" page ..lets make some noise, this stupid examier has made our hard work go down the drain and ruined our university chances. i dont care if boundary goes down, this paper was s*** and they should know about it
http://www.facebook.com/pages/F215-E...08435035864506 There's the link in case you're too lazy to search ... Nice picture!
3. (Original post by MoMatrix)
I wrote some **** to do with making the numbers of ladybird into percentages as the number of ladybird were different from altitudes.
I put make themn into a graph of frequency against distance coz its easyier to compare
4. I think OCR have let us down. The quality of papers are low, just as if it was thrown together a day before.
I really feel hard done by. I dont think OCR care, this exam was what determines if many people go to uni.
F them.....
5. (Original post by mortysteve)
Pretty sure that's correct.

1 mark for saying it. 1 mark for explaining why it's an improvement. 1 mark for showing how.
I wrote take percentages as reading numbers straight off without the same ladybirds at each altitude would be misleading.

Did you agree with his conclusion I didn't i remember reading in the book that 2 variables could be affected by another variable.
6. (Original post by sillysal)
I would +1rep you but I've run out - but i agree with you 100%
very true did you finish all the questions in time?
7. what did people put for the technizue to measure ladybirds up a hill? and why should they do it more times?
8. I bet the peeps who made the question paper, are reading this thread now, having a couple of drinks and a real good laugh at us. Sadistic b******s
9. (Original post by angelbones)
Yeah, that's what I put. Plus when you convert the results in the table to percentages, you can see that his 'conclusion' in the next part of the question is rubbish because all the altitudes have similar percentages.
Not only that, but correlation doesn't imply causality.
10. (Original post by jungdao)
But it told us how many red bugs there were. The red bugs are the bb phenotype and my text book says "q^2 is the frequency of genotype ff" (bb in this case).

That would make q the square root of 0.855 which is 0.92. "q represents the frequency of the allele f (b)"
the you are absolutely right and scored 3 marks
11. (Original post by Crazydavy)
I put tRNA and then chi-squared on a whim
The codes on the diagram, UUA, etc., were from the actual genetic code (i checked google images). If it was tRNA, they would be 'inverted' right?
12. (Original post by nick93)
What did everyone get for the % decrease? I think I got like 42.8% but seems a lot of people are saying 57.25%.
I got 57.25% too - found myself really pressed for time in that paper, almost everyone i knew was pretty angry about the paper afterwards
13. I put Amino Acid, my mind went blank and it was a very badly worded question, the fact we all have different answers shows that! Honestly this paper was horrific, where was the other 90% of the specification.
14. (Original post by I'mBadAtMaths)
what did people put for the technizue to measure ladybirds up a hill? and why should they do it more times?
i put interupted belt trasect...im prob wrong tho
15. (Original post by MoMatrix)
I wrote take percentages as reading numbers straight off without the same ladybirds at each altitude would be misleading.

Did you agree with his conclusion I didn't i remember reading in the book that 2 variables could be affected by another variable.
Probably got two marks.

No. He stated that the height is the cause of the increase of population. Correlation only shows a relationship. It doesn't show causality. If you put that the variables could be affected by another variable, then you're correct and they should give you the marks. You might have had to mention that correlation does not imply causality though.
16. (Original post by Rocks:))
I put Amino Acid, my mind went blank and it was a very badly worded question, the fact we all have different answers shows that! Honestly this paper was horrific, where was the other 90% of the specification.
I think you mean 98% of the specification :P
17. (Original post by aquarius00)
i put interupted belt trasect...im prob wrong tho
Why would you think that's wrong, sounds right to me - I wrote that lol and a few others who do well in bio generally, wrote that too
18. he question about eggs described how both hedgehogs and waders both eat the same eggs at shallow areas or something. At first I thought it said hedgehogs were eating waders eggs but then realised that weren't the case so started all over again.
I swear it said the hedgehogs ate the wader eggs?
19. This exam was crap! No genome stuff, no genetic engineering, no muscle WTF OCR??
20. (Original post by samyakatack)
The codes on the diagram, UUA, etc., were from the actual genetic code (i checked google images). If it was tRNA, they would be 'inverted' right?
Yes.

(Original post by aquarius00)
i put interupted belt trasect...im prob wrong tho
I put that too. Also put that he should take a quadrat every XX metres. (same thing though).

The reason for doing more transects is that you are doing more repeats. More repeats = more reliable results.

Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: June 13, 2012
Today on TSR

### Loughborough better than Cambridge

Loughborough at number one

### Can I date a girl with no boobs?

Poll
Useful resources

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