Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

July 31, 2025, 07:13:51 pm

Author Topic: Biologists! How was it?  (Read 29766 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nancy

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #120 on: June 11, 2008, 09:00:33 pm »
0
with the q abt secondary structure in multiple choice - was the answer b)

Toothpaste

  • pseudospastic
  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Member #10
  • Respect: +26
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #121 on: June 11, 2008, 09:01:45 pm »
0
with the q abt secondary structure in multiple choice - was the answer b)
yep the helix

nancy

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #122 on: June 11, 2008, 09:05:35 pm »
0
n wot did u do for the last q) abt the use of copper..lol ive asked this q) but no1 has answered

username

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • !
  • Respect: +7
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #123 on: June 11, 2008, 09:10:51 pm »
0
I said that too much present in the cell could cause cell poisoning and dysfunction.

bucket

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Respect: +8
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #124 on: June 11, 2008, 09:12:03 pm »
0

Yer i was really pleased with them! (have to admit i nearly tripped up on that 2nd question too!)

I don't think you are actually able to innoculate an organism with rheumatiod arthritus or expose it to it (it's not communicable obviously) so the rats must have been prone to it already! also, vitamin D wouldn't be able to prevent the virus from progressing... or at least i woulndt expect so!

but that's just me trying to make myself (and anyone else) feel better :P



that's exactly what i thought!
I doubt vitamin D would have been able to cure the disease altogether, and i'm more than 100% sure that it said that the virus was CAUSED by the lack of vitamin D, and that is the theory I believe they would be testing, and well you cant test for a cause of a disease if all the subjects already have it. :S


About the copper question.
I wrote that heavy metals occupy the active sites of enzymes and hence inhibit theyre function :S. Wild guess. I was thinking of lead poisoning and yeah. It's prob wrong.
Monash University
Science/Engineering (Maths, Physics and Electrical Engineering)

JL_91

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #125 on: June 11, 2008, 09:55:09 pm »
0
I said that too much present in the cell could cause cell poisoning and dysfunction.

I said something very similar to that, but I also added that too little copper could adversely the fly's functioning as well.


Yer i was really pleased with them! (have to admit i nearly tripped up on that 2nd question too!)

I don't think you are actually able to innoculate an organism with rheumatiod arthritus or expose it to it (it's not communicable obviously) so the rats must have been prone to it already! also, vitamin D wouldn't be able to prevent the virus from progressing... or at least i woulndt expect so!

but that's just me trying to make myself (and anyone else) feel better :P



that's exactly what i thought!
I doubt vitamin D would have been able to cure the disease altogether, and i'm more than 100% sure that it said that the virus was CAUSED by the lack of vitamin D, and that is the theory I believe they would be testing, and well you cant test for a cause of a disease if all the subjects already have it. :S


About the copper question.
I wrote that heavy metals occupy the active sites of enzymes and hence inhibit theyre function :S. Wild guess. I was thinking of lead poisoning and yeah. It's prob wrong.

Rheumatoid arthritis isn't caused by a virus - it's an autoimmune disease that occurs largely due to genetic predisposition, but the question suggested that vitamin D deficiency could have contributed to its development. I think the wording was quite open to interpretation. As I said before, my personal interpretation of it was that it was to do with vitamin D deficiency making the disease develop at a faster rate, rather than being the cause of it. My friend and I were discussing the answer to this question with our teacher right after the exam, and he approved this interpretation...but we could all be wrong :)

I think your "wild guess" would probably be accepted as a correct answer, again that question was so open!

nancy

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #126 on: June 11, 2008, 10:04:23 pm »
0
hormone definition- howd u answer that 1?

carolyncarolyn

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • 99.95 ENTER FTW!
  • Respect: 0
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #127 on: June 11, 2008, 10:10:32 pm »
0
lol for the polypeptide monomer my friend put "monosaccharide" or "monopeptide or something" - if theres sucha  thing!
lol it was funny at the time, poor guy!

THE TUMOR ONE WAS SO RIDICULOUSLY WHATTHURR!

yeah i have psych tmrw tooo!

JL_91

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #128 on: June 11, 2008, 10:34:19 pm »
0
hormone definition- howd u answer that 1?

Oh god. Mine was basically exactly the same as their definition...! I won't get the mark for that.

lol for the polypeptide monomer my friend put "monosaccharide" or "monopeptide or something" - if theres sucha  thing!
lol it was funny at the time, poor guy!

THE TUMOR ONE WAS SO RIDICULOUSLY WHATTHURR!

yeah i have psych tmrw tooo!

Good luck for psych! I was meant to have it too, but I quit a while ago :D ...LOL MONOPEPTIDE..your friend has nice language skills :P And incidentally, I see that this is your first post, so welcome to VCENotes :]
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 10:36:04 pm by JL_91 »

username

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • !
  • Respect: +7
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #129 on: June 11, 2008, 10:42:44 pm »
0
Stupidly enough I thought it was protein, because many proteins = make up polypeptide chain? Its amino acids though I'm guessing.

BA22

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #130 on: June 11, 2008, 10:48:50 pm »
0
polypeptide chain is basically the same as a protein.

chiapants226

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: 0
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #131 on: June 11, 2008, 11:08:42 pm »
0
mmm... i think i did averagely today. i thought i did alright as soon as i got out of the exam, but then reading what you guys wrote and what my pro bio friends were talking makes me think my answers were a bit too vague... i guess i'll find out how i did when i get the results back =P

JL_91

  • Guest
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #132 on: June 11, 2008, 11:10:58 pm »
0
mmm... i think i did averagely today. i thought i did alright as soon as i got out of the exam, but then reading what you guys wrote and what my pro bio friends were talking makes me think my answers were a bit too vague... i guess i'll find out how i did when i get the results back =P

I'm sure you were fine =]

Does anyone know exactly when our mid year results come out?

varnie

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #133 on: June 11, 2008, 11:11:25 pm »
0
when do we get our results back?

Toothpaste

  • pseudospastic
  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Member #10
  • Respect: +26
Re: Biologists! How was it?
« Reply #134 on: June 11, 2008, 11:14:17 pm »
0
when do we get our results back?

4th August