Possible AAMC explanation discrepency

[bestinthewest]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'll refrain from posting any specifics to the Q and A as my inquiry relates to AAMC 5. bio, passage 5, item 30.

I have absolutely no problem with the solution, but a statement made in the solutions explanation has got me thinking.

It states that resistance in a tube is inversely proportional to the length of the tube.

I find this to be blatantly false - how is that even possible? Resistance of a tube or vessel is proportional to the viscosity and length and inversely proportional to the radius^4. It makes sense that the more viscous the material, the greater the resistance experienced. Likewise, expanding radius would certainly diminish resistance. Shouldn't a longer tube consequently impose a greater resistance as opposed to the inverse suggested by the test writer? Any input is appreciated, thanks.

 

[Cawolf]

You are correct, their explanation seems off.

I wouldn't put too much stock into any answer explanation, they are old and contain many errors and unclear sentences.

Resistance is proportional to length and viscosity and inversely proportional to the radius to the fourth power.

 

[swollcat]

You are correct, their explanation seems off.

I wouldn't put too much stock into any answer explanation, they are old and contain many errors and unc

I was confused myself thanks