The Quizbowl Resource Center

We sought and continue to seek a quizbowl question set free of factual errors, misleading information, and confusing grammar. If you noticed any specific factual or grammatical errors within the MAGNI set, please post them here and they'll be fixed in time for future mirrors. I will also be posting any emails here which are sent to me containing reported errors.

For the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, you should accept "California Angels" or "Anaheim Angels." You should also prompt on _Los Angeles_ and accept _Anaheim_ until mentioned.

The tossup on "sex change" had an acceptable answer of "changing from a woman to a man" which is incorrect with what was being described in the question (with Loki turning into a mare and Tiresias gaining breasts as clues). Also, according to what someone who buzzed off the first clue told me was that the person being described in the Mahabharata was that the person being described was that he was originally a man, then got reincarnated as a woman, but was changed back to a man in that reincarnation. So "changing from a man to a woman" or some equivalent should have been in the answerline.

EDIT: Also there was an economics bonus on property _____ in one of the early rounds that had the answer mentioned in the question (I actually don't have the set with me right now so I can't go back and find it).

The thing which is related to Operation Fast and Furious is called "Gunwalker" not "Gunrunner."

Matt Weiner wrote:The thing which is related to Operation Fast and Furious is called "Gunwalker" not "Gunrunner."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/programs/project-gunrunner/

I believe the bonus about Allais's Paradox asked for prospect theory as the last part, but mentioned prospect theory in that part as well.

Alliance in the Alps wrote:EDIT: Also there was an economics bonus on property _____ in one of the early rounds that had the answer mentioned in the question (I actually don't have the set with me right now so I can't go back and find it).

kdroge wrote:I believe the bonus about Allais's Paradox asked for prospect theory as the last part, but mentioned prospect theory in that part as well.

This has been fixed for future mirrors. Thanks for pointing this out.

I think the tossup on pneumonia mentioned something about interacting with c-peptide. According to the internet, it should be c-reactive protein (c-peptide interacts with insulin, which led me to buzz in with "diabetes"). It's possible I just heard the question wrong.

theMoMA wrote:I think the tossup on pneumonia mentioned something about interacting with c-peptide. According to the internet, it should be c-reactive protein (c-peptide interacts with insulin, which led me to buzz in with "diabetes"). It's possible I just heard the question wrong.

The clue in question reads "C-reactive protein got its name because it reacts with the C polypeptide of a causative agent of this condition." I'll definitely double-check, but that doesn't seem to be equivalent to c-peptide.

The bonus about supersaturation said something about it happening when there's an excess of solvent in the mixture, when it definitely should be an excess of solute.

I don't think there's any good reason to refer to Breakfast at Tiffany's as "this story" instead of "this novel(la)." That was kind of confusing.

Sorry about that. That's an oversight. I specifically marked that that should be changed to "this work" (so as not to give away too early that it was a novella), but forgot to make the change.

I maybe be misremembering, but I believe the question on "rational numbers" talks about constructing them with Cauchy sequences, which is at best a hose for "real numbers" and at worst not very correct.

EDIT: This was reported to one of the tournament writers Saturday to settle a protest dispute, so apologies if this post is redundant.

Gaterion wrote:The bonus about supersaturation said something about it happening when there's an excess of solvent in the mixture, when it definitely should be an excess of solute.

Oh, nice catch. That will definitely be changed.

Blanford's Fringe-fingered Lizard wrote:

theMoMA wrote:I think the tossup on pneumonia mentioned something about interacting with c-peptide. According to the internet, it should be c-reactive protein (c-peptide interacts with insulin, which led me to buzz in with "diabetes"). It's possible I just heard the question wrong.

The clue in question reads "C-reactive protein got its name because it reacts with the C polypeptide of a causative agent of this condition." I'll definitely double-check, but that doesn't seem to be equivalent to c-peptide.

Yeah, as written it seems to be fine; I think I just misheard the question when I was playing. If there's an easy way to distinguish C polypeptide from the c-peptide, it might be a good idea, but if there isn't, it's probably not a big deal.

The question on composers from Poland confuses a semitone with a quarter tone, which is an interval half as wide as a semitone:

Packet 14, tossup 11 wrote:Another composer from here wrote a piece for two string orchestras tuned a quarter tone apart, Emanations…

I'm a little confused by this. The tossup reads, "a piece for two string orchestras tuned a semitone apart." If you're trying to suggest that it should read "quarter tone," I don't think that's right, in spite of what a certain Wikipedia list article might claim. I don't have access to a score right now, but a quick search on Grove Music Online and Google Scholar will confirm that the orchestras are indeed a semitone apart.

In the "losing to an FCS team" tossup, the New Mexico coach was Mike Locksley, not David Locksley.

I realize I'm super-late to this party, but here are some science errors/typos I noticed:

Packet 1, bonus 18: the equation-of-state parameter is less than -1/3 for acceleration, not more than +1/3.

Packet 6, bonus 7: the prompt for Gibbs free energy should talk about the log of the grand canonical partition function, not the ensemble.

Packet 8, tossup 4: the lead-in should talk about the enthalpy per unit mass (or specific enthalpy, I guess), not "regular" enthalpy.
Packet 8, tossup 16: Alar's brother is Juri, not Jari.

Packet 12, bonus 9: the Bernoulli equation clue is fine for inviscid flow, but the next bit about div v being 0 applies to incompressible flow.

Packet 13, tossup 15: I'm not really sure what the planetary nebula clue is doing there--it seems like that clue really points to AGB stars (whether binary or not), since asymmetric planetary nebulae aren't always connected to binary systems.

-Seth

setht wrote:Packet 1, bonus 18: the equation-of-state parameter is less than -1/3 for acceleration, not more than +1/3.

This is probably me not doing elementary math correctly. Sorry.

Packet 6, bonus 7: the prompt for Gibbs free energy should talk about the log of the grand canonical partition function, not the ensemble.

I've always heard (or perhaps wrongly understood) the two used interchangeably, but you're right that this should have said "partition function."

Packet 12, bonus 9: the Bernoulli equation clue is fine for inviscid flow, but the next bit about div v being 0 applies to incompressible flow.

Yeah, you're right, my mistake.

Packet 13, tossup 15: I'm not really sure what the planetary nebula clue is doing there--it seems like that clue really points to AGB stars (whether binary or not), since asymmetric planetary nebulae aren't always connected to binary systems.

I assume you're referring to this:

The fact that most planetary nebulae are non-spherical suggests that they are formed by ejection from these objects.

I found this information when researching the question but I'll have to go back and look at my source for more details. I don't think this can be interpreted as "always" but if AGB stars are a possible answer here I guess it should have been a prompt. Maybe I didn't work this information in in the best way possible, but it seemed to me to be a really interesting fact about binary systems.

grapesmoker wrote:

Packet 13, tossup 15: I'm not really sure what the planetary nebula clue is doing there--it seems like that clue really points to AGB stars (whether binary or not), since asymmetric planetary nebulae aren't always connected to binary systems.

I assume you're referring to this:

The fact that most planetary nebulae are non-spherical suggests that they are formed by ejection from these objects.

I found this information when researching the question but I'll have to go back and look at my source for more details. I don't think this can be interpreted as "always" but if AGB stars are a possible answer here I guess it should have been a prompt. Maybe I didn't work this information in in the best way possible, but it seemed to me to be a really interesting fact about binary systems.

Yeah, I was referring to that line in the binary stars tossup. To clarify my comment a bit: my understanding is that all planetary nebulae are ejected by AGB stars. From poking around a bit it looks like people are lining up behind the idea that weird PN morphologies are produced by AGB stars in binary systems, but that's not completely settled yet, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are some (rare) single AGB stars that manage to produce deformed PN. In any case, I think the wording is not ideal, since the thing doing the ejecting is really the AGB star (single or not) that is undergoing thermal pulses. This probably didn't confuse anyone who actually played the tournament, but I guess I'd propose changing the wording to something like "ejection from AGB stars in these systems," which would require moving the clue later in the question.

It certainly is an interesting phenomenon; I think "What about binary systems?" ranks right up there with "What about magnetic fields?" and "What about dust" as one of the classic questions that you can almost always ask after an astro talk--I guess specifically a talk on stars, but it would be great if people started bombarding cosmologists with requests for their thoughts on the effects of stellar multiplicity.

-Seth

djayboots wrote:I'm a little confused by this. The tossup reads, "a piece for two string orchestras tuned a semitone apart." If you're trying to suggest that it should read "quarter tone," I don't think that's right, in spite of what a certain Wikipedia list article might claim. I don't have access to a score right now, but a quick search on Grove Music Online and Google Scholar will confirm that the orchestras are indeed a semitone apart.

My mistake. I checked out the score yesterday, and you are right.

Packet 12, Bonus 20 wrote:[10] Manchester United lost to this Spanish team, led by Ibrahim Afellay and Cesc Fàbregas, in the 2011 UEFA champions league final game. This team is sponsored by UNICEF, Qatar Foundation, and Nike.
ANSWER: Football Club Barcelona [accept Barca and F.C. Barcelona and Futbol Club Barcelona]

Afellay came on as a ninetieth-minute sub in the game, so "led" is hardly correct for him; Fàbregas was still playing for Arsenal at the time. So if those are the players you want to name, "whose roster now includes" is probably the most descriptive terminology you can use.

Obviously this is nitpicky (bonus 20, trash bonus, just a wording change) but saying that Cesc led Barça to a victory in the 2010-11 UCL just isn't accurate.

cornfused wrote:

Packet 12, Bonus 20 wrote:[10] Manchester United lost to this Spanish team, led by Ibrahim Afellay and Cesc Fàbregas, in the 2011 UEFA champions league final game. This team is sponsored by UNICEF, Qatar Foundation, and Nike.
ANSWER: Football Club Barcelona [accept Barca and F.C. Barcelona and Futbol Club Barcelona]

Afellay came on as a ninetieth-minute sub in the game, so "led" is hardly correct for him; Fàbregas was still playing for Arsenal at the time. So if those are the players you want to name, "whose roster now includes" is probably the most descriptive terminology you can use.

Obviously this is nitpicky (bonus 20, trash bonus, just a wording change) but saying that Cesc led Barça to a victory in the 2010-11 UCL just isn't accurate.

Was the idea here to avoid mentioning Mess, thereby making it a hard part?

grapesmoker wrote:

cornfused wrote:

Packet 12, Bonus 20 wrote:[10] Manchester United lost to this Spanish team, led by Ibrahim Afellay and Cesc Fàbregas, in the 2011 UEFA champions league final game. This team is sponsored by UNICEF, Qatar Foundation, and Nike.
ANSWER: Football Club Barcelona [accept Barca and F.C. Barcelona and Futbol Club Barcelona]

Afellay came on as a ninetieth-minute sub in the game, so "led" is hardly correct for him; Fàbregas was still playing for Arsenal at the time. So if those are the players you want to name, "whose roster now includes" is probably the most descriptive terminology you can use.

Obviously this is nitpicky (bonus 20, trash bonus, just a wording change) but saying that Cesc led Barça to a victory in the 2010-11 UCL just isn't accurate.

Was the idea here to avoid mentioning Mess, thereby making it a hard part?

Spanish team in the Champs League final should never be a hard part - reduces it down to a 50-50 guess even for most non-soccer fans.

cornfused wrote:Spanish team in the Champs League final should never be a hard part - reduces it down to a 50-50 guess even for most non-soccer fans.

I think you overstate the number of people who even remotely follow European club soccer.

dtaylor4 wrote:

cornfused wrote:Spanish team in the Champs League final should never be a hard part - reduces it down to a 50-50 guess even for most non-soccer fans.

I think you overstate the number of people who even remotely follow European club soccer.

It's not an issue of "follow"ing. The people who know a lot or a medium amount about soccer know that only Real or Barca is that good - the people who know a little amount soccer probably haven't heard of anyone else in Spain.

And my point isn't that this is an easy part, it's that it shouldn't be a hard part. I'm generally against having hard parts be this guessable. And "guess a soccer team" when the answer is, literally, the best soccer team (ok, the best club soccer team) in the world? That shouldn't be worth 30 points.

I'm unconvinced that this is at all important.

Well, yeah. Either way, my original post was about Cesc, and that was actually an error.


Note: also, Barca isn't the hard part, CONCACAF is, so I withdraw my other point.