AAMC 9 Passage IX Figure 1

[jv00927]

The figure says on its axis that osteoblastin curve is dashed and binding receptor (%) curve is solid. But the figure shows it's both solid. Are we supposed to know by inference which one really is solid and which line is supposed to be dashed?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jv00927]

The one that is higher is the dashed one. that's teh osteoblastin one while the bottom one is the solid one. I know it was hard to decipher but I just looked at it like the fact that the bottom one looked slightly more solid then the other one.

Actually, from reviewing my test, I've figured that the osteoblastin curve is the lower curve (which is supposedly the dashed curve). I figured this out 'coz the right answer to question 195 was B. I actually put C when I took the test thinking the osteoblastin curve was the higher (solid) curve.

 

[estairella]

It is possible to infer which is which. You have two possibilities:

1. increasing receptor binding increases osteoblastin concentration up to a point, after which any increases in receptor binding does not affect osteoblastin concentration
2. increasing receptor binding up to 50% results in unpredictable amounts of osteoblastin produced, ranging from 60% up to 100%

1. makes much more sense than 2.

Also, you should remember that receptor binding is the curve being controlled (dependent variable) while osteoblastin is the curve being observed (independent variable). You'd be a pretty stupid scientist, if you did a bunch of trials at the exact same dependent variable (which is what that flat part of line indicates, if it were to mean receptor binding).

 

[DrCurious]

That passage cost me an 11 on that FL. Granted it could have been extrapolated, but it should have been dashed. Something like that will not happen on the real test.

 

[akinf]

It is possible to infer which is which. You have two possibilities:

1. increasing receptor binding increases osteoblastin concentration up to a point, after which any increases in receptor binding does not affect osteoblastin concentration
2. increasing receptor binding up to 50% results in unpredictable amounts of osteoblastin produced, ranging from 60% up to 100%

1. makes much more sense than 2.

Also, you should remember that receptor binding is the curve being controlled (dependent variable) while osteoblastin is the curve being observed (independent variable). You'd be a pretty stupid scientist, if you did a bunch of trials at the exact same dependent variable (which is what that flat part of line indicates, if it were to mean receptor binding).

I haven't marked BS...but F*CK!!!! I couldn't even tell the difference but I hate myself for not recognizing this rationale.

 

[MJB]

I just LOVE glitches....and I've found many of them in the Kaplan online stuff, and then this one on the AAMC test.