Not sure what you're asking above, but I think DNA is referred to as universal because the same base sequence codes for the same amino acids in almost all organisms. It's referred to as redundant because the same amino acid can be specified by more than one codon (a codon is a sequence of three bases).
Hope that helps you.
In the 2011 exam 1:
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/biology/2011biology1-w.pdfThe multiple choice questions 24 and 25 are really stupid. The answers listed are C for Q24 and B for Q25. First of all I'm wondering how we figure out which person has a specific antibody in their system? I don't quite understand the question, are they putting antibodies to the viruses in the people's systems? If so, the people who have already had the virus would have antibodies in their systems and the addition of these antibodies would make no difference, and hence no agglutation. If the people have no antibodies in their system, there would only be agglutation if the person was currently infected - and the question clearly states that they're trying to work out if they've already been infected, not whether they're currently infected (which you would imagine they would know because they'd be sick.)
So that's my first problem. My second one is that the answer to Q24 is C, which means that VCAA believe it is "reasonable to infer from the information in the table" that Emily has had the greatest number of different viruses. If the table contained all of the viruses in the world, sure, you could infer that, but we have no idea what other kinds of viruses these people have been exposed to, so that is a totally unreasonable answer. It was the first one I discounted because it was so stupid. B and D were obviously wrong, so that left me with A, which makes sense because the addition of the same antibodies wouldn't produce agglutation and really I just had to assume all of the other people who produced agglutation were currently infected with the virus and thus had the antigens in their system, which would react with the antibodies.
The whole question doesn't make sense. Why would they be giving antibodies to people for the specific viruses? You'd think they'd be giving them the antigens and seeing if that caused agglutation. I figure by "Antibody to" VCAA actually mean "Antigen of". Is that right?
If I'm right then VCAA is retarded because that's a pretty monumental f#$kup and I don't want my work to be assessed by them.