Section 1, Part B - Short Answer (1 Viewer)

[Chulbul Pandey]

OH NOOO!! I gave all the advantages of that epidemiological study!! Didn't say any disadvantages

 

[TheOptimist]

TheOptimist did you put any advantages for the epidemiology study?

Yep:
gender balance(however this may have been put off as he removed some non-smokers afterward/controls/.....

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

I thought that taking people out wasn't a problem... the control group and the smoking group have to be the same don't they?

but then the gender ratio is screwed up

Yep:
gender balance(however this may have been put off as he removed some non-smokers afterward/controls/.....

yeah, i thought this during the exam


idk guize

 

[eat_well]

OH NOOO!! I gave all the advantages of that epidemiological study!! Didn't say any disadvantages

Same here! I was kind of stumped on the question :/.

 

[cartoonmaiz]

Was it bad that he removed people. I thought that same number of people in each group was good.

 

[kentonite]

i didn't write anything for the beadle and tatum question please someone tell me the answer lol

 

[wilsondw]

I fucking ripped him. Not valid, reliable or consistent at all.

I whooped that "scientist" methodology

should of said student instead...doubt scientists would be that inconsistent

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

Same here! I was kind of stumped on the question :/.

i said what the study was hoping to achieve, and how the small sample size + small demographic didn't depict a complete representation of the population.


the question was about his methodology, i didn't think it was asking for advantages/disadvantages (by my interpretation anyway)
i based it purely on whether his method made it reliable, accurate or valid.

 

[jax447]

I fucking ripped him. Not valid, reliable or consistent at all.

haah me too

 

[febebebe]

in the communications section, what did you guys put for "match pieces of apparatus used in the experiment to three identified parts of the eye". i said the lenses were the lens, the paper the retina and the fluid the vitreous humor. wbu????

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

I whooped that "scientist" methodology

should of said student instead...doubt scientists would be that inconsistent

ahahahaha. strong scientist, he is

I did say he maintained some features of an epidemiological study, but not all things were considered. Plus the fact that he saw if they had a health check, but didn't elaborate on it. It might have been like:
"have you had a health check in the last year?" response: y/n

it means nothing unless he also analysed that data. it was just mentioned

 

[Chulbul Pandey]

in the communications section, what did you guys put for "match pieces of apparatus used in the experiment to three identified parts of the eye". i said the lenses were the lens, the paper the retina and the fluid the vitreous humor. wbu????

yeahh..same here

 

[desmol]

ahahahaha. strong scientist, he is

I did say he maintained some features of an epidemiological study, but not all things were considered. Plus the fact that he saw if they had a health check, but didn't elaborate on it. It might have been like:
"have you had a health check in the last year?" response: y/n

it means nothing unless he also analysed that data. it was just mentioned

I said he ("they", actually, it was gender neutral) should get it checked and cross-examined by a supervisor lol

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

I said he ("they", actually, it was gender neutral) should get it checked and cross-examined by a supervisor lol

I referred to the scientist as "the scientist", i'm just assuming it's a guy on here because a girl wouldn't overlook such details

 

[desmol]

I referred to the scientist as "the scientist", i'm just assuming it's a guy on here because a girl wouldn't overlook such details

Same here, I wrote "he" about five times and had to cross it out
tsk tsk...

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

Same here, I wrote "he" about five times and had to cross it out
tsk tsk...

ahaha :')

i can't actually remember if i used a general neutral term of though. I didn't mention the scientist in particular that many times, rather how much I thought he was wrong and he should quit his job

 

[desmol]

ahaha :')

i can't actually remember if i used a general neutral term of though. I didn't mention the scientist in particular that many times, rather how much I thought he was wrong and he should quit his job

Don't criticize him too harshly, he's just trying to pay off his student loans

 

[RishBonjour]

what did you guys write for the scientist one? Defs lost a few marks in that.

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

Don't criticize him too harshly, he's just trying to pay off his student loans

send him back to uni!

lrn2epidemiology/10

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

what did you guys write for the scientist one? Defs lost a few marks in that.

- he used some features of an epidemiological report, but it wasn't reliable, consistent, or accurate.
- small sample size
- didn't survey other demographics i.e. age, occupation, location
- he removed some people from the report, reducing the half female/half male control
- didn't consolidate his data with the reports of other scientists
- no assessment of relevance of questions asked
- no repetition with other parts of population