Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence @PACENSC
benjaminthedonkey wrote:The only example of poor pyramidality I can think of off the top of my head was a "Fragile X" tossup that mentioned X in the first line.
mrsmiley4 wrote:...there seemed like a LOT more math/science questions than the 5/5 per packet asked for in the distribution.
mrsmiley4 wrote:...after about the 8th graph theory question which our team had no clue on the apparent prevalence began to get a little tiresome.
mrsmiley4 wrote:...the editors [have] a math/science bias...
mrsmiley4 wrote:...[the editors had] to replace a large number of bad [non-science] questions [with science questions.]
Nathan wrote:the "Ibrahim" tossup's explicit instruction not to take "Abraham" was horribly in error...unless I missed a specific statement at the beginning of the tossup that the Islamic name was required.
several of the clues referred equally well to Abraham (Terah was an idolator in Jewish tradition as well) and anyone listening to the tossup would conclude that it was seeking a pan-religious character.
my 3 cents.
4) I also have no idea what Nathan is talking about. How is a tossup on John Austin a "mistake"? He's only the most influential British philosopher of the post-WWII era.
setht wrote:More thoughts on science...
WKB approximation: This one also feels like a pretty hard question.... Anyway, huzzah for real quantum mechanics, and down with particle physics.
Heat transfer bonus: the third part on Dirichlet problems was a bit confusing.
Equations of state, radioisotopes bonuses: I tend to feel that questions on crazy equations of state are kinda ass.
Landau: I don't know anything about this Landau pole of which the question speaks, so I have no idea whether that clue is properly placed in the question; assuming that part's fine, I think this is a really good question. I realize it's probably harder than the typical science tossup, but I still wish it had been put in the first 20 of some packet.
setht wrote:I think it is easier to write a lazy, boring particle physics
question (especially a bonus) than any other kind of physics
question, but I am convinced that it is entirely possible to
write a complete set of non-particle physics questions which
are pyramidal, accessible, and start with clues physics
people should know. There are all sorts of well-known topics like "pressure," "electric field," and so on that have scads of important, interesting facts that could be used as clues. Why write another boring tauon tossup? I would argue that concepts like pressure and electric field are far more useful to the typical layperson, as well as the typical scientist.
I don't really have much else in the way of arguments here. Matt is correct in pointing out that it is possible to write real particle physics questions; the Regionals set contains at least one example that seems good to me. I guess particle physics is probably sexier to the typical layperson than the fundamentals of physics, but: a) I think "importance" and "usefulness" should probably be weighted more heavily in determining science subdistributions than "interest for the layperson," at least at ACF Regionals and Nationals; b) I think it's entirely possible to write non-particle physics questions on important concepts/people/whatever that will be interesting to most laymen; c) shitty particle physics questions have little or no sex appeal.
A. Parkinson's specifically degrades this collection of cell bodies outside the CNS that comprises the substantia nigra, caudate nucleus, and putamen.
Answer: basal ganglia
A. The cell-surface proteins that are found on fragments of invading or foreign cells are usually molecules encoded by this group of genes.
Answer: major histocompatibility complex
vandyhawk wrote: I think that HLA wouldn't really be correct b/c the group of genes is the MHC, while the various subtypes of molecules are called the HLA's (human leukocyte antigens).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest