biology practical

[redd]

tht question was hard because we were not to supposed to hve beenn studied it and i think we didnt had to give this much informaion about the reaction
wht u think?

But i guess Inhibition is the right word to use... because it inhibits starch-iodine reaction.

 

[happyperson]

I drew the epithelial cells as well...they didn't look like squamous tho

But i could hardly see anything other than the small circles around the alveoli so i drew them only.

I got 3.0 cm3...I just extended the line since it was already rightly linear and I extrapolated the value from the graph

I got 3 cm^3 as well.

 

[Dukeofwin]

I got 3.0 cm3...I just extended the line since it was already rightly linear and I extrapolated the value from the graph

That was exactly how it should've been done! I got 2.9cm3

 

[princessnoor]

yes right, this is far beyond everyone's reach, but i did mention that ascorbic acid breaks the iodine sol and then the excess iodine reacts with starch and it changes to blue black

i guess thts correct

 

[princessnoor]

That was exactly how it should've been done! I got 2.9cm3

hey i wrote 3.02 !!

 

[princessnoor]

But i guess Inhibition is the right word to use... because it inhibits starch-iodine reaction.

check this out is it correct , the question 2 part bii

 

[princessnoor]

There has to be a mixed response for ascorbic acid question. Threshold for that question will be low so calm down!

Btw what magnification did you guys get?

wht do u think wht gt would be?

 

[Dukeofwin]

wht do u think wht gt would be?

Has to be between 22 and 26. Cant think of any higher for this paper!

 

[redd]

check this out is it correct , the question 2 part biiView attachment 44119

Yes, but as far as i drew, i did include the half cells in that area...

 

[Minion96]

well, mine went just okay, i made blunders at some places, and my magnification was x200.
I think i messed the things that i could have done right.

 

[happyperson]

What was to be written in the last part after graph, related to volume?

 

[Rohan O]

well, mine went just okay, i made blunders at some places, and my magnification was x200.
I think i messed the things that i could have done right.

Magnification was x407 it was 22mm=54um(microns)
So 22=22*1000=22000/54= 407.4 but it needs to be 3 sig fig x407

 

[Rohan O]

What was to be written in the last part after graph, related to volume?

What was the question?

 

[Rohan O]

Yes, but as far as i drew, i did include the half cells in that area...

Me too! *highfive*
Our sir told us if the area indicated has half cells you include those!

 

[princessnoor]

Yes, but as far as i drew, i did include the half cells in that area...

u didnt had to draw half cells cuz the question asked "draw WHOLE cells"

 

[princessnoor]

Has to be between 22 and 26. Cant think of any higher for this paper!

yes exactly!!
first question was hard

 

[Dukeofwin]

Magnification was x407 it was 22mm=54um(microns)
So 22=22*1000=22000/54= 407.4 but it needs to be 3 sig fig x407

Spot on! I got 245

 

[Dukeofwin]

What was to be written in the last part after graph, related to volume?

We had to extend the graph and check what was the volume at 100% concentration. It should be different according to everyone's scaling and extension, I got 2.9cm3

 

[redd]

u didnt had to draw half cells cuz the question asked "draw WHOLE cells"

Well i didnt notice that it read "Whole cells" then only that must be drawn if it said whole cells

 

[redd]

well, mine went just okay, i made blunders at some places, and my magnification was x200.
I think i messed the things that i could have done right.

Ohh no, the magnification was x400, i double checked that, 22ooo/54 so it was x400.
Dont worry, pray that the threshold falls down so that everyone scores well Inshaa Allah