2018 Examiners report is out

[PhoenixxFire]

The examiners report can be found here. The exam itself hasn't been released yet.

A few things I noticed:
- People are still not providing comparative answers when required
- People are using abbreviations without defining them (specifically rER and ER were not accepted without definitions).
- The suggested answers are specific. For example, for question 2b. they've accepted 'virally infected cells' but not 'infected cells'. When a scenario is provided, suggested answers refer to the scenario. Even if this is not explicitly stated, if you are given a scenario you should refer to it.

- VCAA has provided general answers for the question on chemical plant defenses (3a). This is notable as they don't usually do this. The 2017 exam asked a very similar question, except relating to physical defenses and all the suggested answers included a specific example (e.g. waxy cuticles, thick bark). The 2018 examiners report states that specific examples (e.g. chitinases, oxalic acid, phenols, saponins and glucanases) were accepted however they also accepted general statements such as
 the secretion of a toxin or an odour that is harmful or unfavourable to pathogens
 the production of enzymes that affect pathogen functioning.

- The examiners report indicates that there was a lot of confusion about BMP4, however the average mark was 1.3/3 which makes me think that people understood the general idea but were unable to write about it specifically in relation to Galapagos finches and cichlid fish.
- Experimental design questions that should have been straightforward (e.g. write a hypothesis, identify what results would not support the hypothesis) were very poorly answered. This indicates that students need more practice with answering experimental design questions in relation to a provided scenario.