<p>lichens are mutualism, not parasitism… come on, they’re algae and fungi!!!</p>
<p>Guys one question: what do colleges see? Just your score or a report describing how many you got right, wrong and blank?</p>
<p>And also,
I don’t think it was accumulation of metabolic wastes.</p>
<p>Accumulation of metabolic wastes wouldn’t necessarily cause population to decline.
Because it’s a yeast cell colony, it would have to be related to alcohol as yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration producing ethyl alcohol, which is like their food source.</p>
<p>So if you remove alcohol, it would decrease the colony size. -< the answer I put.</p>
<p>@pdateh32 the vine question hypothesis was that the guy’s hypothesis?</p>
<p>also that vine question what two things was the data about? Tree and tree without vine? I read it really quickly… cuz i was rushing :P</p>
<p>I didn’t take E, but that doesn’t sound right, SwedishM8.</p>
<p>Accumulation of metabolic wastes would kill an organism, causing the population to decline. Alcohol is a byproduct of cellular respiration, I never once heard that they have alcohol as a food source. Removing alcohol wouldn’t decrease the colony size imo.</p>
<p>Yeah my bad…My brain effed up…dunno why but I foolishly thought that alcohol was a necessity for alcohoic fermentation…■■■.
dam i’m looking at -3, omit 1 right now…</p>
<p>Can anyone confirm with me about the cell colony being at 96,000 at 48 if it followed the exponential curve of the previous 0-24 time frame?</p>
<p>what was the question about the tundra and what were the answer choices?</p>
<p>@swedish, it asked for the projected population after 48 hours if the growth had followed the average growth in the time between 0-24 hours</p>
<p>The question said if it followed the growth patttern from 0-24.</p>
<p>0-24 was an exponential growth pattern. from 24-48, it slowed down (logistic)</p>
<p>Like it said, the original graph if you looked at t=48 would be around 80,000.</p>
<p>So if you followed the exponential growth pattern it had to be greater.
And the only answer choice would be 96,000.</p>
<p>So for the M part the diagram showed an amino acid? and so far -2 
maybe more T_T</p>
<p>Tundra question was like, “Why can’t trees grow in the tundra?” or something like that.</p>
<p>The ones that I remember are:</p>
<p>Insect populations would destroy it(?) ← something to do with insects
It can’t get past the soil of the tundra ← I picked this one
The layer of humus is too deep
It would compete with other trees in tundra(?)</p>
<p>And, I forgot the fifth answer choice.</p>
<p>Swedish didn’t the graph show exponential growth? So I forget the wording of the question but if it said it followed the growth rate of the first 24 hours it would be 50,000, but if it followed the reproduction rate of the bacteria in the first 24 hours it would be 96,000. This is if I remember the question correctly, not sure.</p>
<p>The answer is the soil in the roots one.</p>
<p>hey DAIMYO what was the vine chart about? like there was control and experimental? Was is TREE w/ vine VS TREE w/o vine?</p>
<p>Took M and I was really disappointed in myself after the test… thought it was hard - looked at the eye diagram on the 2nd page and was like “damn, I’ll probably need to cancel.” </p>
<p>Stupid question time: on questions 1-4, which were the chloroplasts and which were the mitochondria? </p>
<p>I picked my answers with the mitochondria as the smaller ones with weird stick lines and the chloroplasts as the bigger ones with fuzzy things (thought they were thylakoids) and lines extending from them. </p>
<p>Can someone explain the diagram of an amino acid? I didn’t know which part was the peptide bond, and I forgot the 3rd part of the question (1st asked what it was I think).</p>
<p>Balthazar,
The graph showed an exponential growth curve from 0-24, and from 24 onwards was a slow logistic curve, like a bell shaped.
So from 0-24, it increased way faster than after 24.</p>
<p>russ the one that only the plant cell had were the chloroplasts…i think they were bigger than the mitochondria in the diagram.</p>
<p>Oh, Swedish I’m not sure then. For some reason I remembering the graph showing exponential growth and the graph curved up even steeper after 24 hours.</p>
<p>@russgenious</p>
<p>i think the first two were mitochondria and the solar → sugar one was chroloplast.
also, if you noticed that, the right one was a plant cell? the thing that only one of them had was a chrorloplast.</p>
<p>@likeastarr The control group consisted of vines with live trees and the experimental were vines in artificial trees.
Because the artificial vines (lets call them like that) grew slower, you can say that vines need nutrients from the trees</p>
<p>@russgenious Mitochondria was B and I think chloroplasts were bigger in the image
You can identify aminoacids thanks to the peptide bond where you see a O-C-N-H
Apparently the question didnt ask what part was the peptide bond but where another aminoacid would form a peptide bond and thats always on the loose ends</p>