For Day 2 Homework Cover Sheet Name:_________________________________________________ 1. Read Pages from 19-33, or watch the videos listed below.  Decimal Number System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpehqS5ejA (12 min)  Natural through Complex Numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH946PzUGIg (13 min) 2. Attempt problems on workbook pages 3-6 Summary of the lectures you watched. List any parts of the video lecture (if there are any) that were unclear or you had trouble understanding. Please be specific and do not just say “All of it”. Questions you had difficulty with or felt stuck on- ALEKS topic number from this sheet that you were stuck on- ALEKS topics to be mastered (13 topics) Converting a decimal to a fraction: Basic Expanded form Expanded form with zeros Multiplication by 10, 100, and 1000 Numeral translation: Problem type 1 Numeral translation: Problem type 2 Whole number place value: Problem type 1 Whole number place value: Problem type 2 Writing a decimal and a fraction for a shaded region Writing a signed number for a real-world situation Writing ratios for real-world situations Decimal place value: Hundreds to ten thousandths Decimal place value: Tenths and hundredths

For Day 2 Homework Cover Sheet Name:_________________________________________________ 1. Read Pages from 19-33, or watch the videos listed below.  Decimal Number System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpehqS5ejA (12 min)  Natural through Complex Numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH946PzUGIg (13 min) 2. Attempt problems on workbook pages 3-6 Summary of the lectures you watched. List any parts of the video lecture (if there are any) that were unclear or you had trouble understanding. Please be specific and do not just say “All of it”. Questions you had difficulty with or felt stuck on- ALEKS topic number from this sheet that you were stuck on- ALEKS topics to be mastered (13 topics) Converting a decimal to a fraction: Basic Expanded form Expanded form with zeros Multiplication by 10, 100, and 1000 Numeral translation: Problem type 1 Numeral translation: Problem type 2 Whole number place value: Problem type 1 Whole number place value: Problem type 2 Writing a decimal and a fraction for a shaded region Writing a signed number for a real-world situation Writing ratios for real-world situations Decimal place value: Hundreds to ten thousandths Decimal place value: Tenths and hundredths

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
A fast food chain store conducted a taste survey before marketing a new hamburger. The results of the survey showed that 70% of the people who tried it liked the hamburger. Assume that 70% of all people like this hamburger. On a certain day, 8 customers bought it for the first time. Find the probability that at least 3people like the hamburger.

A fast food chain store conducted a taste survey before marketing a new hamburger. The results of the survey showed that 70% of the people who tried it liked the hamburger. Assume that 70% of all people like this hamburger. On a certain day, 8 customers bought it for the first time. Find the probability that at least 3people like the hamburger.

Which communication method can be effective both during the day and at night? Select one: a. All of these can be effective both during the day and at night. b. tactile c. visual d. auditory e. chemical

Which communication method can be effective both during the day and at night? Select one: a. All of these can be effective both during the day and at night. b. tactile c. visual d. auditory e. chemical

Info@checkyourstudy.com                                                                                                                                                                                       : All of these can be effective both during … Read More...
Tornado Eddy Investigation Abstract The objective of this lab was to write a bunch of jibberish to provide students with a formatting template. Chemical engineering, bioengineering, and environmental engineering are “process engineering” disciplines. Good abstracts contains real content, such as 560 mL/min, 35 deg, and 67 percent yield. Ideal degreed graduates are technically strong, bring broad system perspectives to problem solving, and have the professional “soft skills” to make immediate contributions in the workplace. The senior lab sequence is the “capstone” opportunity to realize this ideal by integrating technical skills and developing professional soft skills to ensure workforce preparedness. The best conclusions are objective and numerical, such as operating conditions of 45 L/min at 32 deg C with expected costs of $4.55/lb. Background Insect exchange processes are often used in bug filtration, as they are effective at removing either positive or negative insects from water. An insect exchange column is a packed or fluidized bed filled with resin beads. Water flows through the column and most of the insects from the water enter the beads, but some of them pass in between the beads, which makes the exchange of insects non-ideal. Insectac 249 resin is a cation exchange resin, as it is being used to attract cationic Ca2+ from the toxic waste stream. This means the resin is negatively charged, and needs to be regenerated with a solution that produces positively charged insects, in this case, salt water which contains Na+ insects. The resin contains acidic styrene backbones which capture the cationic insects in a reversible process. A curve of Ca2+ concentration concentration vs. time was obtained after a standard curve was made to determine how many drops from the low cost barium test kit from Aquarium Pharmaceuticals (API)1 bottle #2 would correspond to a certain concentration in solution. A standard curve works by preparing solutions with known concentrations and testing these concentrations using the kit to create a curve of number of drops from bottle #2 (obtained result) vs. concentration of Ca2+ in solution (desired response). The standard curve can then be used for every test on the prototype and in the field, to quickly and accurately obtain a concentration from the test kit. The barium concentration vs. time curve can be used to calculate the exchange capacity of the resin and, in later tests, the regeneration efficiency. The curves must be used to get the total amount of barium removed from the water, m. Seen in Equation 2, the volumetric flow rate of water, , is multiplied by the integral from tinitial to tfinal of the total concentration of Ca2+ absorbed by the resin as a function of time, C. (2) 1 http://aquariumpharm.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=72 , date accessed: 11/26/10 CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 Josephine Hornsnogger CBEE 414, Lab Section M 1300–‐1550 April 19, 2010 Oregon State University School of CBEE A graphical trapezoid method was used to evaluate the integral and get the final solution in equivalents of Ca2+ per L, it must be noted that there are 2 equivalents per mole of barium, as the charge of the barium insect is +2. An initial exchange capacity was calculated for the virgin resin, and an adjusted exchange capacity was calculated once the resin was regenerated. The regenerated resin capacity was found by multiplying the virgin resin capacity by the regeneration efficiency, expressed in Equation 3. (3) See Appendix A for the calculation of the exchange capacities and the regeneration efficiency. Materials and Methods Rosalie and Peter Johnson of Corvallis established the Linus Pauling Chair in Chemical Engineering to honor Oregon State University’s most famous graduate. Peter Johnson, former President and owner of Tekmax, Inc., a company which revolutionized battery manufacturing equipment, is a 1955 graduate of the College of Engineering.2 The Chair, also known as the Linus Pauling Distinguished Engineer or Linus Pauling Engineer (LPE), was originally designed to focus on the traditional “capstone” senior lab sequence in the former Department of Chemical Engineering. The focus is now extended to all the process engineering disciplines. The LPE is charged with establishing strong ties with industry, ensuring current and relevant laboratory experiences, and helping upperclass students develop skills in communication, teamwork, project management, and leadership. Include details about lab procedures not sufficiently detailed in the SOP, problems you had, etc. The bulk solution prepared to create the standard curve was used in the second day of testing to obtain the exchange capacity of the insectac 249 resin. The solution was pumped through a bathroom scale into the prototype insect exchange column. 45 mL of resin was rinsed and added to the column. The bed was fluidized as the solution was pumped through the resin, but for the creation of the Ca2+ concentration vs. time curve, the solution was pumped down through the column, as illustrated in the process flow diagram seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. Process sketch of the insect exchange column used for the project. Ref: http://www.generon.co.uk/acatalog/Chromatography.html 2 Harding, P. Viscosity Measurement SOP, Spring, 2010. CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 Josephine Hornsnogger CBEE 414, Lab Section M 1300–‐1550 April 19, 2010 Oregon State University School of CBEE A bathroom scale calibration curve was created to ensure that the 150 mL/min, used to calculate the breakthrough time, would be delivered to the resin. The bathroom scale used was a Dwyer brand with flowrates between 0 and 300 cc/min of water. Originally, values between 120 and 180 mL/min were chosen for the calibration, with three runs for each flowrate, however the bathroom scale values were so far away from the measure values the range was extended to 100 to 200 mL/min. The regeneration experiment was performed using a method similar to that used in the water softening experiment, however instead of using a 640 ppm Ca2+ solution to fill the resin, a 6000 ppm Na+ solution was used to eject the Ca2+ from the resin. Twelve samples times were chosen and adjusted as the experiment progressed, with more than half of the samples taken at times less than 10 minutes, and the last sample taken at 45 minutes. The bulk exit solution was also tested to determine the regeneration efficiency. Results and Discussion The senior lab sequence has its roots in the former Department of Chemical Engineering. CHE 414 and 415 were taught in Winter and Spring and included 6 hours of lab time per week. The School has endeavored to incorporate the courses into the BIOE and ENVE curriculum, and this will be complete in 2008-2009. Recent development of the senior lab course sequence is shown chronologically in Fig. 1. In 2006-2007, CHE 414 and 415 were moved to Fall and Winter to enable CHE 416, an elective independent senior project course. Also that year, BIOE students took BIOE 414 in the Fall and BIOE 415 was developed and taught. No BIOE students enrolled in the optional CHE. In 2007-2008, the program transitioned in a new Linus Pauling Engineer and ENVE 414 was offered. Also, approximately 30 percent of BIOE students enrolled in the optional CHE 416. Accommodating the academic calendars of the three disciplines required a reduction in weekly student lab time from 6 to 3 hours. The expected relationship between coughing rate, y, and length of canine, x, is Bx z y Fe− (1) where F is a pre-exponential constant, B is vitamin B concentration and z is the height of an average trapeze artist. 3 The 2008-2009 brings the challenge of the dramatic enrollment increase shown in Fig. 1 and the first offering of ENVE 415. The result, shown on the right in Fig. 1, is the delivery of the senior lab sequence uniformly across the process engineering disciplines. CBEE 416 is expected to drawn approximately of the students that take the 415 courses. In 2007-2008, 414 and 415 were required for CHEs, 414 and 415 for BIOEs, and only 414 for ENVEs. CHE 416 is ostensibly an elective for all disciplines. In 2008-2009, 414 and 415 is required for all disciplines and CHE 416 will be an elective. The content of 414 is essentially 3 Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer, Welty, J.R. et al., 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 Josephine Hornsnogger CBEE 414, Lab Section M 1300–‐1550 April 19, 2010 Oregon State University School of CBEE identical for all three disciplines, 415 has discipline-specific labs, and 416 consists of senior projects with potentially cross-discipline teams of 2 to 4 students. Tremendous labor and struggling with the lab equipment resulted in the data shown in y = –‐0.29x + 1.71 y = –‐0.25x + 2.03 y = –‐0.135x + 2.20 –‐1.5 –‐1.0 –‐0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 ln y (units) x (units) ln y_1 ln y_2 ln y_3 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Slope (units) (a) (b) Figure 1. (a) Data for y and x plotted for various values of z and (b) a comparison of slopes for the 3 cases investigate. The log plot slope yields the vitamin B concentration. The slopes were shown to be significantly at the 90% confidence level, but the instructor ran out of time and did not include error bars. The slope changed as predicted by the Snirtenhoffer equation. Improvements to the lab might include advice on how to legally change my name to something less embarrassing. My whole life I have been forced to repeat and spell it. I really feel that this has affected my psychologically. This was perhaps the worst lab I have ever done in my academic career, primarily due to the fact that there was no lab time. I simply typed in this entire report and filled it with jibberish. Some might think nobody will notice, but I know that …… Harding reads every word. Acknowledgments The author acknowledges his elementary teacher for providing truly foundational instruction in addition and subtraction. Jenny Burninbalm was instrumental with guidance on use of the RT-345 dog scratching device. CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12

Tornado Eddy Investigation Abstract The objective of this lab was to write a bunch of jibberish to provide students with a formatting template. Chemical engineering, bioengineering, and environmental engineering are “process engineering” disciplines. Good abstracts contains real content, such as 560 mL/min, 35 deg, and 67 percent yield. Ideal degreed graduates are technically strong, bring broad system perspectives to problem solving, and have the professional “soft skills” to make immediate contributions in the workplace. The senior lab sequence is the “capstone” opportunity to realize this ideal by integrating technical skills and developing professional soft skills to ensure workforce preparedness. The best conclusions are objective and numerical, such as operating conditions of 45 L/min at 32 deg C with expected costs of $4.55/lb. Background Insect exchange processes are often used in bug filtration, as they are effective at removing either positive or negative insects from water. An insect exchange column is a packed or fluidized bed filled with resin beads. Water flows through the column and most of the insects from the water enter the beads, but some of them pass in between the beads, which makes the exchange of insects non-ideal. Insectac 249 resin is a cation exchange resin, as it is being used to attract cationic Ca2+ from the toxic waste stream. This means the resin is negatively charged, and needs to be regenerated with a solution that produces positively charged insects, in this case, salt water which contains Na+ insects. The resin contains acidic styrene backbones which capture the cationic insects in a reversible process. A curve of Ca2+ concentration concentration vs. time was obtained after a standard curve was made to determine how many drops from the low cost barium test kit from Aquarium Pharmaceuticals (API)1 bottle #2 would correspond to a certain concentration in solution. A standard curve works by preparing solutions with known concentrations and testing these concentrations using the kit to create a curve of number of drops from bottle #2 (obtained result) vs. concentration of Ca2+ in solution (desired response). The standard curve can then be used for every test on the prototype and in the field, to quickly and accurately obtain a concentration from the test kit. The barium concentration vs. time curve can be used to calculate the exchange capacity of the resin and, in later tests, the regeneration efficiency. The curves must be used to get the total amount of barium removed from the water, m. Seen in Equation 2, the volumetric flow rate of water, , is multiplied by the integral from tinitial to tfinal of the total concentration of Ca2+ absorbed by the resin as a function of time, C. (2) 1 http://aquariumpharm.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=72 , date accessed: 11/26/10 CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 Josephine Hornsnogger CBEE 414, Lab Section M 1300–‐1550 April 19, 2010 Oregon State University School of CBEE A graphical trapezoid method was used to evaluate the integral and get the final solution in equivalents of Ca2+ per L, it must be noted that there are 2 equivalents per mole of barium, as the charge of the barium insect is +2. An initial exchange capacity was calculated for the virgin resin, and an adjusted exchange capacity was calculated once the resin was regenerated. The regenerated resin capacity was found by multiplying the virgin resin capacity by the regeneration efficiency, expressed in Equation 3. (3) See Appendix A for the calculation of the exchange capacities and the regeneration efficiency. Materials and Methods Rosalie and Peter Johnson of Corvallis established the Linus Pauling Chair in Chemical Engineering to honor Oregon State University’s most famous graduate. Peter Johnson, former President and owner of Tekmax, Inc., a company which revolutionized battery manufacturing equipment, is a 1955 graduate of the College of Engineering.2 The Chair, also known as the Linus Pauling Distinguished Engineer or Linus Pauling Engineer (LPE), was originally designed to focus on the traditional “capstone” senior lab sequence in the former Department of Chemical Engineering. The focus is now extended to all the process engineering disciplines. The LPE is charged with establishing strong ties with industry, ensuring current and relevant laboratory experiences, and helping upperclass students develop skills in communication, teamwork, project management, and leadership. Include details about lab procedures not sufficiently detailed in the SOP, problems you had, etc. The bulk solution prepared to create the standard curve was used in the second day of testing to obtain the exchange capacity of the insectac 249 resin. The solution was pumped through a bathroom scale into the prototype insect exchange column. 45 mL of resin was rinsed and added to the column. The bed was fluidized as the solution was pumped through the resin, but for the creation of the Ca2+ concentration vs. time curve, the solution was pumped down through the column, as illustrated in the process flow diagram seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. Process sketch of the insect exchange column used for the project. Ref: http://www.generon.co.uk/acatalog/Chromatography.html 2 Harding, P. Viscosity Measurement SOP, Spring, 2010. CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 Josephine Hornsnogger CBEE 414, Lab Section M 1300–‐1550 April 19, 2010 Oregon State University School of CBEE A bathroom scale calibration curve was created to ensure that the 150 mL/min, used to calculate the breakthrough time, would be delivered to the resin. The bathroom scale used was a Dwyer brand with flowrates between 0 and 300 cc/min of water. Originally, values between 120 and 180 mL/min were chosen for the calibration, with three runs for each flowrate, however the bathroom scale values were so far away from the measure values the range was extended to 100 to 200 mL/min. The regeneration experiment was performed using a method similar to that used in the water softening experiment, however instead of using a 640 ppm Ca2+ solution to fill the resin, a 6000 ppm Na+ solution was used to eject the Ca2+ from the resin. Twelve samples times were chosen and adjusted as the experiment progressed, with more than half of the samples taken at times less than 10 minutes, and the last sample taken at 45 minutes. The bulk exit solution was also tested to determine the regeneration efficiency. Results and Discussion The senior lab sequence has its roots in the former Department of Chemical Engineering. CHE 414 and 415 were taught in Winter and Spring and included 6 hours of lab time per week. The School has endeavored to incorporate the courses into the BIOE and ENVE curriculum, and this will be complete in 2008-2009. Recent development of the senior lab course sequence is shown chronologically in Fig. 1. In 2006-2007, CHE 414 and 415 were moved to Fall and Winter to enable CHE 416, an elective independent senior project course. Also that year, BIOE students took BIOE 414 in the Fall and BIOE 415 was developed and taught. No BIOE students enrolled in the optional CHE. In 2007-2008, the program transitioned in a new Linus Pauling Engineer and ENVE 414 was offered. Also, approximately 30 percent of BIOE students enrolled in the optional CHE 416. Accommodating the academic calendars of the three disciplines required a reduction in weekly student lab time from 6 to 3 hours. The expected relationship between coughing rate, y, and length of canine, x, is Bx z y Fe− (1) where F is a pre-exponential constant, B is vitamin B concentration and z is the height of an average trapeze artist. 3 The 2008-2009 brings the challenge of the dramatic enrollment increase shown in Fig. 1 and the first offering of ENVE 415. The result, shown on the right in Fig. 1, is the delivery of the senior lab sequence uniformly across the process engineering disciplines. CBEE 416 is expected to drawn approximately of the students that take the 415 courses. In 2007-2008, 414 and 415 were required for CHEs, 414 and 415 for BIOEs, and only 414 for ENVEs. CHE 416 is ostensibly an elective for all disciplines. In 2008-2009, 414 and 415 is required for all disciplines and CHE 416 will be an elective. The content of 414 is essentially 3 Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer, Welty, J.R. et al., 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 Josephine Hornsnogger CBEE 414, Lab Section M 1300–‐1550 April 19, 2010 Oregon State University School of CBEE identical for all three disciplines, 415 has discipline-specific labs, and 416 consists of senior projects with potentially cross-discipline teams of 2 to 4 students. Tremendous labor and struggling with the lab equipment resulted in the data shown in y = –‐0.29x + 1.71 y = –‐0.25x + 2.03 y = –‐0.135x + 2.20 –‐1.5 –‐1.0 –‐0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 ln y (units) x (units) ln y_1 ln y_2 ln y_3 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Slope (units) (a) (b) Figure 1. (a) Data for y and x plotted for various values of z and (b) a comparison of slopes for the 3 cases investigate. The log plot slope yields the vitamin B concentration. The slopes were shown to be significantly at the 90% confidence level, but the instructor ran out of time and did not include error bars. The slope changed as predicted by the Snirtenhoffer equation. Improvements to the lab might include advice on how to legally change my name to something less embarrassing. My whole life I have been forced to repeat and spell it. I really feel that this has affected my psychologically. This was perhaps the worst lab I have ever done in my academic career, primarily due to the fact that there was no lab time. I simply typed in this entire report and filled it with jibberish. Some might think nobody will notice, but I know that …… Harding reads every word. Acknowledgments The author acknowledges his elementary teacher for providing truly foundational instruction in addition and subtraction. Jenny Burninbalm was instrumental with guidance on use of the RT-345 dog scratching device. CBEE 102: ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPUTATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12

For any additional help, please contact: info@checkyourstudy.com Call / Whatsapp … Read More...
The third task : Tutorial Topic 5 – IT and Information Systems Search business magazines and other sources of information for recent articles that discuss the use of information technology in delivering significant business benefits to an organisation. Use other sources to find additional information about the organisation. For the tutorial, prepare a brief report on your findings, and identify the application area(s) in the organisation that IT has supported. HOW TO DO THIS: 1. Identify an organisation big enough to have material published about it. 2. Write short introduction/description of the organisation 3. Identify business magazines that publish articles about IT 4. Other sources of information could be the organisations website 5. Or the company that is selling the information technology 6. Brief report – what is a report? what is the writing style of a report? Examples of information sourses: 1. http://www.infoworld.com/about 2. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/learning/management_thinking/articles/?subject=ebusiness 3. http://www.computerworlduk.com/it-business/ 4. http://www.businessweek.com/reports 5. http://www.informationweek.com/ 6. http://www.webroot.com/us/en/business/resources/articles/ or search for Business IT articles

The third task : Tutorial Topic 5 – IT and Information Systems Search business magazines and other sources of information for recent articles that discuss the use of information technology in delivering significant business benefits to an organisation. Use other sources to find additional information about the organisation. For the tutorial, prepare a brief report on your findings, and identify the application area(s) in the organisation that IT has supported. HOW TO DO THIS: 1. Identify an organisation big enough to have material published about it. 2. Write short introduction/description of the organisation 3. Identify business magazines that publish articles about IT 4. Other sources of information could be the organisations website 5. Or the company that is selling the information technology 6. Brief report – what is a report? what is the writing style of a report? Examples of information sourses: 1. http://www.infoworld.com/about 2. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/learning/management_thinking/articles/?subject=ebusiness 3. http://www.computerworlduk.com/it-business/ 4. http://www.businessweek.com/reports 5. http://www.informationweek.com/ 6. http://www.webroot.com/us/en/business/resources/articles/ or search for Business IT articles

Toyota Motor Corporation  Ever since 1957, after the Crown was … Read More...
1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

Engineering Ethics Steve is updating the HVAC system in his house. The house is older and quite large. It will likely require new zoning as temperatures vary considerably throughout the home. His friend, Terry, owns a small HVAC company and tells Steve that new zoning is going to be difficult without doing major construction. However, there are some things that could be done to improve the temperature disparities throughout the house but “it will be far from perfect.” He quotes Steve a very favorable “friend discount” for the job. For good measure, Steve enlists a larger and more reputable firm to bid on the job as well. The company sends out their best project engineer, Bobby, to see if anything can be done to zone the house effectively and efficiently. Bobby spends the day at the house trying to come up with a creative solution for the problem. Bobby appears very committed to finding a solution and is genuinely excited and enthusiastic about the challenge. A week later Bobby returns with an elaborate and creative proposal for Steve. Bobby assures Steve that this solution will correct the temperature disparities and guarantees that he will work above and beyond to make sure the job is done to near perfection. Steve is very impressed with the design that Bobby has come up with but needs to think about it because the cost is more than he intended to spend. Steve tells his friend Terry about the proposal and Terry says that it is a “genius” idea. He also tells him that he will do the job using Bobby’s design for half the price. Steve did not sign any agreement with Bobby’s company; however, Bobby invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on the design. Bobby is very committed to his job and as has a tendency to trust people as evidenced by the fact that he let Steve make a copy of his detailed proposal that included his drawings. Bobby’s philosophy is to trust people “unless they give you a reason not to.” Using two moral theories, one of them being Kant’s deontology, try to determine the best course of action for Steve by constructing a brief ethical argument. Also, make sure to include the perspective of all three parties involved.

Engineering Ethics Steve is updating the HVAC system in his house. The house is older and quite large. It will likely require new zoning as temperatures vary considerably throughout the home. His friend, Terry, owns a small HVAC company and tells Steve that new zoning is going to be difficult without doing major construction. However, there are some things that could be done to improve the temperature disparities throughout the house but “it will be far from perfect.” He quotes Steve a very favorable “friend discount” for the job. For good measure, Steve enlists a larger and more reputable firm to bid on the job as well. The company sends out their best project engineer, Bobby, to see if anything can be done to zone the house effectively and efficiently. Bobby spends the day at the house trying to come up with a creative solution for the problem. Bobby appears very committed to finding a solution and is genuinely excited and enthusiastic about the challenge. A week later Bobby returns with an elaborate and creative proposal for Steve. Bobby assures Steve that this solution will correct the temperature disparities and guarantees that he will work above and beyond to make sure the job is done to near perfection. Steve is very impressed with the design that Bobby has come up with but needs to think about it because the cost is more than he intended to spend. Steve tells his friend Terry about the proposal and Terry says that it is a “genius” idea. He also tells him that he will do the job using Bobby’s design for half the price. Steve did not sign any agreement with Bobby’s company; however, Bobby invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on the design. Bobby is very committed to his job and as has a tendency to trust people as evidenced by the fact that he let Steve make a copy of his detailed proposal that included his drawings. Bobby’s philosophy is to trust people “unless they give you a reason not to.” Using two moral theories, one of them being Kant’s deontology, try to determine the best course of action for Steve by constructing a brief ethical argument. Also, make sure to include the perspective of all three parties involved.

info@checkyourstudy.com
BI 102 Lab 1 Writing Assignment How did the different concentrations of sucrose impact osmotic rate? This assignment requires you to evaluate a hypothesis and communicate the results of your experiment on the rate of osmosis into sucrose solutions of varying concentrations. The questions below are meant to guide you to reporting the key findings of your experiment and help you think through how to explain the findings and draw conclusions from them in a scientific manner. ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the following questions to complete your laboratory write up. For this assignment you will only focus on the osmosis of water into sucrose concentrations of varying concentration. Make sure that your write up is accurate, and clearly written so that it is easily readable. A grading rubric is provided on the second page of this assignment. To earn full points on your write up, you must provide answers that align to the “meets” column of your grading rubric as well as meeting all “Quality of Writing and Mechanics” elements described in the rubric. There are also some tips on pages 3-4 of this assignment to help you succeed. FORMAT: • Type your responses, using 1.5 or double spacing. • Include the section headings (Hypothesis, Results, Analysis) and question number (example: 1, 2, 3, etc) in your answers but do not rewrite the question. • Graphs may be made with a computer program (example: Microsoft excel, Mac numbers, etc) or may be neatly produced with a ruler on graphing paper. • Print out the cover sheet on page 2 of this assignment, read and sign the academic honesty statement, and submit it with your write up. Your instructor WILL NOT accept a write up without the signed cover sheet. DUE DATE: Your write up is due at the beginning of class next week. Late assignments will have 1 point deducted per day up to 5 days, at which point the assignment will be assigned 0 points. Hypothesis and Prediction – Part 1 of Rubric 1. What did you think was going to happen in this experiment and why? You may find it helpful to state your answers to these questions as an “if-then” hypothesis-prediction. Be sure you have included a biological rationale that explains WHY you made this hypothesis/prediction. (You worked on this in question 2 on page 10 of this lab activity) Results – Part 2 of Rubric 2. How did the different concentrations of sucrose impact osmotic rate? Answer this question by creating a line graph that shows the results of your experiment. If you need assistance building a graph, there is a Guide to Graphing resource available on your Moodle lab course site. Analysis- Part 3 of Rubric 3. Explain why you think that the results shown in your graph support or refute your hypothesis (remember we never “prove” anything in science). Consider all your data and the overall data pattern as you answer this question. Don’t ignore unusual data that may not seem to fit into a specific patterns (“outliers”). Explain what you think might be behind these unusual data points. 4. What is the biological significance of your results? What biological concepts explain completely why these events happened in the experiment? How do these results help you understand the biology of the cell and how materials move back and forth across the cell membrane? (A hint: refer back to questions 1A-1F on page 10 of this lab activity). Think about giving a specific example. References- Mechanics Checklist 5. Provide at least one full citation (make sure you include an in-text citation that pinpoints where you used this resource) for a resource you made use of in performing the experiment, understanding the concepts and writing this assignment. (Perhaps your lab manual? Your textbook? A website?) If you used more than one resource, you need to cite each one! If you need help with citations, a Guide to Citing References is available on your Moodle lab course site. Please print out and submit this cover sheet with your lab writeup! Lab Writeup Assignment (1) Assessment Rubric-­‐ 10 points total Name: ________________________________________ Element Misses (1 point) Approaches (2 points) Meets (3 points) Hypothesis Clarity/Specificity Testability Rationale ___Hypothesis is unclear and hardto- understand ___Hypothesis is not testable ___No biological rationale for hypothesis or rationale is fully inaccurate ___Hypothesis included is clearly stated, but not specific or lacks specific details __Hypothesis is testable, but not in a feasible way in this lab ___Some foundation for hypothesis, but based in part on biological inaccuracy ___Hypothesis included is clearly stated and very specific ___Hypothesis is testable and could be tested within lab parameters ___Rationale for hypothesis is grounded in accurate biological information Graph Title Axes Variables Key Graph clarity Data accuracy ___Graph lacks a title ___Axes are not labeled ___Variables not addressed in graph ___No key or way to tell data points apart ___Graph is hard to read and comparisons cannot be made: Inappropriate graph type or use of scale ___Data graphed is inaccurate or does not relate to experiment ___Graph has a title that is not very descriptive ___Axes are either unlabeled, or units are unclear or wrong ___Variables addressed in graph, but not on correct axes ___Key included, but is hard to understand ___Graph is somewhat readable, comparisons can be made with difficulty: Appropriate graph type, but not scaled well ___Data graphed is partially accurate; some data is missing ___Graph has a concise, descriptive title ___Axes are labeled, including clarification of units used ___Variables on correct axes ___A clear, easy-to-use key to data points is included ___Graph is clearly readable and comparisons between treatments are easy to make: Graph type and scale are appropriate to data ___Data graphed is accurate and includes all relevant data, including controls (if needed) Analysis Hypothesis Scientific language Data addressed Explanation ___Hypothesis is not addressed ___Hypothesis is described using language like proven, true, or right ___No explanations for data patterns observed in graph or data does not support conclusions. ___No biological explanation for data trends or explanations are completely inaccurate ___Hypothesis is mentioned, but not linked well to data ___Hypothesis is not consistently described as supported or refuted ___Some data considered in conclusions but other data is ignored. Any unusual “outliers” are ignored ___Explanations include minimal or some inaccurate biological concepts ___Hypothesis is evaluated based upon data ___Hypothesis is consistently described as supported or refuted ___All data collected is considered and addressed by conclusions, including presence of outliers, ___Explanations include relevant and accurate biological concepts Quality of Writing and Mechanics: Worth 1 point. Writeup should meet all of the following criteria! Yes No ☐ ☐ Write up includes your name, the date, and your lab section ☐ ☐ Write up is free from spelling and grammatical errors (make sure you proofread!!) ☐ ☐ Write up is clear and easy-to-understand ☐ ☐ Write up includes full citation for at least one reference with corresponding in-text citation ☐ ☐ All portions of write up are clearly labeled, and question numbers are included Plagiarism refers to the use of original work, ideas, or text that are not your own. This includes cut-and-paste from websites, copying directly from texts, and copying the work of others, including fellow students. Telling someone your answers to the questions (including telling someone how to make their graph, question #2), or asking for the answers to any question, is cheating. (Asking someone how to make the graph for this assignment is NOT the same as asking for help learning excel or some other software). All forms of cheating, including plagiarism and copying of work will result in an immediate zero for the exam, quiz, or assignment. In the case of copying, all parties involved in the unethical behavior will earn zeros. Cheating students will be referred to the Student Conduct Committee for further action. You also have the right to appeal to the Student Conduct Committee. I have read and understand the plagiarism statement. ____________________________________________________ Signature Guidelines for Good Quality Scientific Reports Hypothesis and Prediction: The hypothesis is a tentative explanation for the phenomenon. Remember that: • A good hypothesis and prediction is testable (and should be testable under the conditions of our lab environment; For example, if your hypothesis requires shooting a rocket into space, then its not really testable under our laboratory conditions). • Your explanation can be ruled out through testing, or falsified. • A good hypothesis and prediction is detailed and specific in what it is testing. • A good hypothesis provides a rationale or explanation for why you think your prediction is reasonable and this rationale is based on what we know about biology. • A good prediction is specific and can be tested with a specific experiment. Examples*: I think that diet soda will float and regular soda will sink. {This hypothesis misses the goal. It is not specific as we don’t know where the sodas are floating and sinking, and it does not provide any explanation to explain why the hypothesis makes sense} Because diet soda does not contain sugar and regular soda does, the diet soda will float in a bucket of water, while regular soda will sink. {This hypothesis approaches the goal. It is more specific about the conditions, and it provides a partial explanation about why the hypothesis makes sense, but the connection between sugar and sinking is unclear} If diet soda does not contain sugar, then its density (mass/volume) is lower than that of regular soda which does contain sugar, and so diet soda will float in a bucket of water while regular soda sinks. {This hypothesis meets the goal. It is specific and the rationale- sugar affects density and density is what determines floating or sinking in water- is clearly articulated} *Note that these examples are for different experiments and investigations and NOT about your osmosis lab. They are provided only to help you think about what you need to include in your write up. Graph: The graph is a visual representation of the data you gathered while testing your hypothesis. Remember that: • A graph needs a concise title that clearly describes the data that it is showing. • Data must be put on the correct axes of the graph. In general, the data you collected (representing what you are trying to find out about) goes on the vertical (Y) axis. The supporting data that that describes how, when or under what conditions you collected your data goes on the horizontal (X) axis. (For this reason time nearly always goes on the X-axis). • Axes must be labeled, including the units in which data were recorded • Data points should be clearly marked and identified; a key is helpful if more than one group of data is included in the graph. • The scale of a graph is important. It should be consistent (there should be no change in the units or increments on a single axis) and appropriate to the data you collected Examples: {This graph misses the goal. There is no title, nor is there a key to help distinguish what the data points mean. The scale is too large- from 0 to 100 with an increment of 50, when the maximum number in the graph is 25- and makes it hard to interpret this graph. The x-axis is labeled, but without units (the months) and the y-axis has units, but the label is incomplete- number of what?} {This graph meets the goal. There is a descriptive title, and all of the axes are clearly labeled with units. There is a key so that we can distinguish what each set of data points represent. The dependent variable (number of individuals) is correctly placed on the y-axis with the independent variable of time placed on the x-axis. The scale of 0-30 is appropriate to the data, with each line on the x-axis representing an increment of 5.} 0 50 100 Number Month 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 March April May June July Number of individuals Month (2011) Population size of three different madtom catiCish in the Marais de Cygnes River in Spring/Summer 2011 Brindled madtom Neosho madtom Slender madtom Analysis: You need to evaluate your hypothesis based on the data patterns shown by your graph. Remember that: • You use data to determine support or refute your hypothesis. It is only possible to support a hypothesis, not to “prove” one (that would require testing every possible permutation and combination of factors). Your evaluation of your hypothesis should not be contradicted by the pattern shown by your data. • Refer back to the prediction you made as part of your hypothesis and use your data to justify your decision to support or refute your hypothesis. • In the “if” part of your hypothesis you should have provided a rationale, or explanation for the prediction you made in your hypothesis (“then” part of hypothesis”). Use this to help you explain why you think you observed the specific pattern of data revealed in your graph. • You should consider all of the data you collected in examining the support (or lack of support for your hypothesis). If there are unusual data points or “outliers” that don’t seem to fit the general pattern in your graph, explain what you think those mean. Examples: I was right. Diet Pepsi floated and so did Apricot Nectar. Regular Pepsi sank. Obviously the regular Pepsi was heavier. This helps us understand the concept of density, which is a really important one. {This analysis misses the goal. The hypothesis isn’t actually mentioned and the data is only briefly described. There is no explanation of the importance of the Apricot Nectar results. Finally, there is no connection to how these results help understand density or why it is biologically important} I hypothesized that diet soda would float, and all three cans of diet Pepsi did float while the regular Pepsi sank. This supports my hypothesis. Both types of Pepsi were 8.5 fluid ounces in volume, but the regular Pepsi also contained 16 grams of sugar. This means that the regular Pepsi had 16 more grams of mass provided by the sugar in the same amount of volume. This would lead to an increase in density, which explains why the regular soda cans sank. When we put in a can of Apricot Nectar, which had 19 grams of sugar, it floated. This was unexpected, but I think it is explained by the fact that an Apricot Nectar can had a volume of 7 fluid ounces, but the dimensions of the can are the same as that of a Pepsi can. A same-sized can with less liquid probably has an air space that helped it float. The results of this experiment help us understand how the air bladder of a fish, which creates an air space inside the fish, helps it float in the water and also how seaweeds and other living things with air spaces or other factors that decrease their density keep from sinking to the bottom of the water. {This analysis meets the goal. It clearly ties the hypothesis to the results and outlines what they mean. It describes how the results support the hypothesis, but also explains a possible reason behind the unusual results of the Apricot Nectar. Finally, there is a link to how this experiment helps us understand biology}

BI 102 Lab 1 Writing Assignment How did the different concentrations of sucrose impact osmotic rate? This assignment requires you to evaluate a hypothesis and communicate the results of your experiment on the rate of osmosis into sucrose solutions of varying concentrations. The questions below are meant to guide you to reporting the key findings of your experiment and help you think through how to explain the findings and draw conclusions from them in a scientific manner. ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the following questions to complete your laboratory write up. For this assignment you will only focus on the osmosis of water into sucrose concentrations of varying concentration. Make sure that your write up is accurate, and clearly written so that it is easily readable. A grading rubric is provided on the second page of this assignment. To earn full points on your write up, you must provide answers that align to the “meets” column of your grading rubric as well as meeting all “Quality of Writing and Mechanics” elements described in the rubric. There are also some tips on pages 3-4 of this assignment to help you succeed. FORMAT: • Type your responses, using 1.5 or double spacing. • Include the section headings (Hypothesis, Results, Analysis) and question number (example: 1, 2, 3, etc) in your answers but do not rewrite the question. • Graphs may be made with a computer program (example: Microsoft excel, Mac numbers, etc) or may be neatly produced with a ruler on graphing paper. • Print out the cover sheet on page 2 of this assignment, read and sign the academic honesty statement, and submit it with your write up. Your instructor WILL NOT accept a write up without the signed cover sheet. DUE DATE: Your write up is due at the beginning of class next week. Late assignments will have 1 point deducted per day up to 5 days, at which point the assignment will be assigned 0 points. Hypothesis and Prediction – Part 1 of Rubric 1. What did you think was going to happen in this experiment and why? You may find it helpful to state your answers to these questions as an “if-then” hypothesis-prediction. Be sure you have included a biological rationale that explains WHY you made this hypothesis/prediction. (You worked on this in question 2 on page 10 of this lab activity) Results – Part 2 of Rubric 2. How did the different concentrations of sucrose impact osmotic rate? Answer this question by creating a line graph that shows the results of your experiment. If you need assistance building a graph, there is a Guide to Graphing resource available on your Moodle lab course site. Analysis- Part 3 of Rubric 3. Explain why you think that the results shown in your graph support or refute your hypothesis (remember we never “prove” anything in science). Consider all your data and the overall data pattern as you answer this question. Don’t ignore unusual data that may not seem to fit into a specific patterns (“outliers”). Explain what you think might be behind these unusual data points. 4. What is the biological significance of your results? What biological concepts explain completely why these events happened in the experiment? How do these results help you understand the biology of the cell and how materials move back and forth across the cell membrane? (A hint: refer back to questions 1A-1F on page 10 of this lab activity). Think about giving a specific example. References- Mechanics Checklist 5. Provide at least one full citation (make sure you include an in-text citation that pinpoints where you used this resource) for a resource you made use of in performing the experiment, understanding the concepts and writing this assignment. (Perhaps your lab manual? Your textbook? A website?) If you used more than one resource, you need to cite each one! If you need help with citations, a Guide to Citing References is available on your Moodle lab course site. Please print out and submit this cover sheet with your lab writeup! Lab Writeup Assignment (1) Assessment Rubric-­‐ 10 points total Name: ________________________________________ Element Misses (1 point) Approaches (2 points) Meets (3 points) Hypothesis Clarity/Specificity Testability Rationale ___Hypothesis is unclear and hardto- understand ___Hypothesis is not testable ___No biological rationale for hypothesis or rationale is fully inaccurate ___Hypothesis included is clearly stated, but not specific or lacks specific details __Hypothesis is testable, but not in a feasible way in this lab ___Some foundation for hypothesis, but based in part on biological inaccuracy ___Hypothesis included is clearly stated and very specific ___Hypothesis is testable and could be tested within lab parameters ___Rationale for hypothesis is grounded in accurate biological information Graph Title Axes Variables Key Graph clarity Data accuracy ___Graph lacks a title ___Axes are not labeled ___Variables not addressed in graph ___No key or way to tell data points apart ___Graph is hard to read and comparisons cannot be made: Inappropriate graph type or use of scale ___Data graphed is inaccurate or does not relate to experiment ___Graph has a title that is not very descriptive ___Axes are either unlabeled, or units are unclear or wrong ___Variables addressed in graph, but not on correct axes ___Key included, but is hard to understand ___Graph is somewhat readable, comparisons can be made with difficulty: Appropriate graph type, but not scaled well ___Data graphed is partially accurate; some data is missing ___Graph has a concise, descriptive title ___Axes are labeled, including clarification of units used ___Variables on correct axes ___A clear, easy-to-use key to data points is included ___Graph is clearly readable and comparisons between treatments are easy to make: Graph type and scale are appropriate to data ___Data graphed is accurate and includes all relevant data, including controls (if needed) Analysis Hypothesis Scientific language Data addressed Explanation ___Hypothesis is not addressed ___Hypothesis is described using language like proven, true, or right ___No explanations for data patterns observed in graph or data does not support conclusions. ___No biological explanation for data trends or explanations are completely inaccurate ___Hypothesis is mentioned, but not linked well to data ___Hypothesis is not consistently described as supported or refuted ___Some data considered in conclusions but other data is ignored. Any unusual “outliers” are ignored ___Explanations include minimal or some inaccurate biological concepts ___Hypothesis is evaluated based upon data ___Hypothesis is consistently described as supported or refuted ___All data collected is considered and addressed by conclusions, including presence of outliers, ___Explanations include relevant and accurate biological concepts Quality of Writing and Mechanics: Worth 1 point. Writeup should meet all of the following criteria! Yes No ☐ ☐ Write up includes your name, the date, and your lab section ☐ ☐ Write up is free from spelling and grammatical errors (make sure you proofread!!) ☐ ☐ Write up is clear and easy-to-understand ☐ ☐ Write up includes full citation for at least one reference with corresponding in-text citation ☐ ☐ All portions of write up are clearly labeled, and question numbers are included Plagiarism refers to the use of original work, ideas, or text that are not your own. This includes cut-and-paste from websites, copying directly from texts, and copying the work of others, including fellow students. Telling someone your answers to the questions (including telling someone how to make their graph, question #2), or asking for the answers to any question, is cheating. (Asking someone how to make the graph for this assignment is NOT the same as asking for help learning excel or some other software). All forms of cheating, including plagiarism and copying of work will result in an immediate zero for the exam, quiz, or assignment. In the case of copying, all parties involved in the unethical behavior will earn zeros. Cheating students will be referred to the Student Conduct Committee for further action. You also have the right to appeal to the Student Conduct Committee. I have read and understand the plagiarism statement. ____________________________________________________ Signature Guidelines for Good Quality Scientific Reports Hypothesis and Prediction: The hypothesis is a tentative explanation for the phenomenon. Remember that: • A good hypothesis and prediction is testable (and should be testable under the conditions of our lab environment; For example, if your hypothesis requires shooting a rocket into space, then its not really testable under our laboratory conditions). • Your explanation can be ruled out through testing, or falsified. • A good hypothesis and prediction is detailed and specific in what it is testing. • A good hypothesis provides a rationale or explanation for why you think your prediction is reasonable and this rationale is based on what we know about biology. • A good prediction is specific and can be tested with a specific experiment. Examples*: I think that diet soda will float and regular soda will sink. {This hypothesis misses the goal. It is not specific as we don’t know where the sodas are floating and sinking, and it does not provide any explanation to explain why the hypothesis makes sense} Because diet soda does not contain sugar and regular soda does, the diet soda will float in a bucket of water, while regular soda will sink. {This hypothesis approaches the goal. It is more specific about the conditions, and it provides a partial explanation about why the hypothesis makes sense, but the connection between sugar and sinking is unclear} If diet soda does not contain sugar, then its density (mass/volume) is lower than that of regular soda which does contain sugar, and so diet soda will float in a bucket of water while regular soda sinks. {This hypothesis meets the goal. It is specific and the rationale- sugar affects density and density is what determines floating or sinking in water- is clearly articulated} *Note that these examples are for different experiments and investigations and NOT about your osmosis lab. They are provided only to help you think about what you need to include in your write up. Graph: The graph is a visual representation of the data you gathered while testing your hypothesis. Remember that: • A graph needs a concise title that clearly describes the data that it is showing. • Data must be put on the correct axes of the graph. In general, the data you collected (representing what you are trying to find out about) goes on the vertical (Y) axis. The supporting data that that describes how, when or under what conditions you collected your data goes on the horizontal (X) axis. (For this reason time nearly always goes on the X-axis). • Axes must be labeled, including the units in which data were recorded • Data points should be clearly marked and identified; a key is helpful if more than one group of data is included in the graph. • The scale of a graph is important. It should be consistent (there should be no change in the units or increments on a single axis) and appropriate to the data you collected Examples: {This graph misses the goal. There is no title, nor is there a key to help distinguish what the data points mean. The scale is too large- from 0 to 100 with an increment of 50, when the maximum number in the graph is 25- and makes it hard to interpret this graph. The x-axis is labeled, but without units (the months) and the y-axis has units, but the label is incomplete- number of what?} {This graph meets the goal. There is a descriptive title, and all of the axes are clearly labeled with units. There is a key so that we can distinguish what each set of data points represent. The dependent variable (number of individuals) is correctly placed on the y-axis with the independent variable of time placed on the x-axis. The scale of 0-30 is appropriate to the data, with each line on the x-axis representing an increment of 5.} 0 50 100 Number Month 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 March April May June July Number of individuals Month (2011) Population size of three different madtom catiCish in the Marais de Cygnes River in Spring/Summer 2011 Brindled madtom Neosho madtom Slender madtom Analysis: You need to evaluate your hypothesis based on the data patterns shown by your graph. Remember that: • You use data to determine support or refute your hypothesis. It is only possible to support a hypothesis, not to “prove” one (that would require testing every possible permutation and combination of factors). Your evaluation of your hypothesis should not be contradicted by the pattern shown by your data. • Refer back to the prediction you made as part of your hypothesis and use your data to justify your decision to support or refute your hypothesis. • In the “if” part of your hypothesis you should have provided a rationale, or explanation for the prediction you made in your hypothesis (“then” part of hypothesis”). Use this to help you explain why you think you observed the specific pattern of data revealed in your graph. • You should consider all of the data you collected in examining the support (or lack of support for your hypothesis). If there are unusual data points or “outliers” that don’t seem to fit the general pattern in your graph, explain what you think those mean. Examples: I was right. Diet Pepsi floated and so did Apricot Nectar. Regular Pepsi sank. Obviously the regular Pepsi was heavier. This helps us understand the concept of density, which is a really important one. {This analysis misses the goal. The hypothesis isn’t actually mentioned and the data is only briefly described. There is no explanation of the importance of the Apricot Nectar results. Finally, there is no connection to how these results help understand density or why it is biologically important} I hypothesized that diet soda would float, and all three cans of diet Pepsi did float while the regular Pepsi sank. This supports my hypothesis. Both types of Pepsi were 8.5 fluid ounces in volume, but the regular Pepsi also contained 16 grams of sugar. This means that the regular Pepsi had 16 more grams of mass provided by the sugar in the same amount of volume. This would lead to an increase in density, which explains why the regular soda cans sank. When we put in a can of Apricot Nectar, which had 19 grams of sugar, it floated. This was unexpected, but I think it is explained by the fact that an Apricot Nectar can had a volume of 7 fluid ounces, but the dimensions of the can are the same as that of a Pepsi can. A same-sized can with less liquid probably has an air space that helped it float. The results of this experiment help us understand how the air bladder of a fish, which creates an air space inside the fish, helps it float in the water and also how seaweeds and other living things with air spaces or other factors that decrease their density keep from sinking to the bottom of the water. {This analysis meets the goal. It clearly ties the hypothesis to the results and outlines what they mean. It describes how the results support the hypothesis, but also explains a possible reason behind the unusual results of the Apricot Nectar. Finally, there is a link to how this experiment helps us understand biology}

info@checkyourstudy.com Whatsapp +919911743277