Thoughts on Bio exam?? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter muhahahahahaha
- Start date
Ishynooshy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 71
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
Thank you. I was hoping I didn't need to really spell it out to them.
lol wtf?
I mean Shapes, Structures, Same thing practically.
You're going to need to backup the claims that A) Structure of cones do in fact change. B) They get thinner in the fovea. I'm sure you, having a background in Advanced Science, would understand this requirement. Surely something as specific as this would be mentioned somewhere on the internet, don't you think?
Last edited:
Do you take wikipedia as a reliable source?
"Structurally, cone cells have a cone-like shape at one end where a pigment filters incoming light, giving them their different response curves. They are typically 40-50 µm long, and their diameter varies from .50 to 4.0 µm, being smallest and most tightly packed at the center of the eye at the fovea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell#Structure
Not when there's a big fat [citation needed] sign next to the paragraph.
Ishynooshy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 71
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_9/ch9p1.html
The figure just below the same figure you linked to me.
"Note the size difference"
Just for validity, another source:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/photo1.html#light
For example, the rod inner segments are 2 microns and the cone's about 6 microns in diameter in peripheral human retina. In the fovea, however, where there are only cone photoreceptors, the most central cones are even thinner than the average rod at about 1.5 microns diameter. Inner segment regions of both rods and cones are filled with long thin mitochondria. At the top of the inner segment a thin cilium joins the inner and outer segments of the rods and cones
The figure just below the same figure you linked to me.
"Note the size difference"
Just for validity, another source:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/photo1.html#light
For example, the rod inner segments are 2 microns and the cone's about 6 microns in diameter in peripheral human retina. In the fovea, however, where there are only cone photoreceptors, the most central cones are even thinner than the average rod at about 1.5 microns diameter. Inner segment regions of both rods and cones are filled with long thin mitochondria. At the top of the inner segment a thin cilium joins the inner and outer segments of the rods and cones
Last edited:
blackratpoo
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 272
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2010
ok, this is so pathetic. who cares, whats done is done. our marks are in.
i did this question last yalando. i thought it was great. they dont give you a source for no reason. i think you needed to make a solid argument about how the source (from memory it was showing the transitional form of mammals and birds or something) validates evolution. however, they gave you so much room for you to go into everything (comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry etc). so basically, you needed to do both well for any chance of getting 7.
Okay then, assuming these sources are correct, which they appear to be, such a dot-point would need to be a process and analyse information, etc. seeing as our textbooks, dot-point book, etc. didn't exactly touch on this particular segmented topic. So to conclude, 99% of students most probably got this question wrong. We had access to internet and we barely got it.
Last edited:
Ishynooshy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 71
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
The question is only unfair because it does deal with the finer details of the eye that most textbooks have likely ignored. BUT it does still fall under the dot point that I keep referring to.
Most of you have said that the core section was fairly easy. This question may have been included so there is some separation in the marks at the higher end of the marking scale.
Most of you have said that the core section was fairly easy. This question may have been included so there is some separation in the marks at the higher end of the marking scale.
yalando
Member
Why would you get abrasive about what I said? If you want to do that then I'm sorry to say that the source actually had nothing to do with transitional forms of mammals to birds as outside of the HSC it is common knowledge that birds descended from the dinosaurs and mammals did not, therefore they aren't transitional forms (which wasn't even covertly implied within the source.) It was about, if anything, biogeography and the effects of separation + differring physical and chemical pressures for evolution, also the "sudden" appearance of birds would have been said to talk about punctuated equilibrium. I was merely asking something but since you're on some conceited high horse I feel compelled to bring you down.
NewiJapper
Active Member
I think I answered the cone question in the communication option correctly. Even though it said how the structure changes, I think there is more than one answer. AND yes it is a very controversial topic because some people were completely dumb-founded by it but I was happy with my answer. I said that cones which are not situated in the fovea are connected to a single nerve cell in groups, but, cones in the fovea are all individually connected to a single nerve cell, allowing for visual acuity. This wasn't in any textbooks or any source given in class except for the fact it was a throw-away line our teacher added in one of his random biological ramblings that actually stuck in my head and it was one of the only things I could think of. I thought about the three different opsins but that doesn't really change at all within the eye, so I thought that was my best bet 
muhahahahahaha
Active Member
meh, the communication section was a load of bs. The hardest part was the part about the larynx...it just made me think WHAT THE HELL?? i would understand if they asked us something about a proper dot point from the syllabus but to draw the larynx with high pitch and low pitch is just stupid. The dot point was so small that i think most of us just wouldnt pay attention to it. The 7 markers were just stupid. Since when was comprehension a part of year 12 biology...I thought that was more something aimed at people who did not study for the exam whatsoever.The questions with the sources did not greatly test the ability of the students to give a thorough explanation to show the examiner their knowledge. All in all the test was good. the only really crappy question was the one about the larynx.
NewiJapper
Active Member
The larynx one was easy? The closer together the vocal cords are, the higher the pitch of the sound :/ lol
I dont think the question is hard, you can kind of just use your common sense with the answer. However i dont think images of such are even in the text books. Because i remember after the test i was trying to look for them in the Jacaranda book and Maquire books but found nothing of that sort. Maybe i wasnt looking hard enough
NewiJapper
Active Member
No, it wasn't. But luckily our teacher just got a picture off the internet and put it into our workbooks.Jonneeh said:
22530
Selling Chem, Bio notes
I did Genetics as the option and clearly got fried as it is the hardest option. I did all the BIo past papers up to 2002 and could do every question. This year, a crazy epidemiology question pops up, asks you to analyse 2 charts!!! I could figure out one but not the other. >:<W T F!!!!! So guess what, I've lost like 4 marks and got no state ranking. Also, I got a bit pissed at this year's exam. All the hulaboloo about practical skills were answered yet the test had so much of it, it made me feel how pissed I am at my Bio teacher who kept talking about the theory component and at the BOS for turning Part 2 of the exam into virtually a practical skills exam.