SampleQuestions on Growth and Form
CreepyCritters are tiny animals that thrive well in water and even developfaster if they are subjected to favorable conditions. GrowingCreatures is a fascinating and a noble experience. One takes his orher science skills to the top-notch level. Many questions can thus beeliminated since the hands-on work provide a good leeway. The growingof critters do not demand so much effort but keen analysis of eventsto clearly identify different stages of growth as compared to otherti9ny creatures. Science holds that critters are super waterabsorbing creatures, which have a special superabsorbent polymer. Thehydrogel is water loving, therefore, seeps in more water. Thisrationale formed the basis for the project. Water was used to growthe critters.
Themain aim of conducting a project on this topic was to ascertain theidea of a company that critters grow at an exponentially faster rate.The book indicates that creepy critters can grow as fast as achievinga standard size of 600 percent the original size. The postulation isso far raising he questions on the validity of the growth pattern ofCreepy Critters. The core aim of the project was based on checkingout the congruence of the statement by conducting out an experimenton the growth of critters
Waterwas used as the liquid growth medium. A glass was filled with arelatively warm water until it became three-quarter full. Warm waterwas preferred to gain the ambient temperature, favoring the growth ofthe critters.
Asmall-bodied creepy critter was then placed in the water.
Intermittentobservations were then made, taking keen notice of the changes in thegrowth pattern indicated by the size and the weight of the critters.The observations were, made after 2hours, 4 hours, and 24 hoursrespectively.
Thecup was used as a unit of measurement to measure the volume ofoccupied by the critters. Also, rulers were used to measuring theincrease in size without narrowing deep into more precision. Waterdisplacement method was later used to gauge the exact increase inweight but not changes in the volume.
Duringthe project, the object critter was traced from the beginning of theexperiment up to the end of the growth timeline to take fundamentalchanges in the growth pattern of the critters.
Acalculation was made on the increase in surface area in contingencyto the weight gained by the critters.
Externalchanges induced in the experiment were also taken into considerationto minimize cases of confounding factors. The external factors takeninto consideration skewed towards the growth or swelling of the toysuch as temperature changes and the light duration.
Accordingto the experiment, it is noted that creepy critters experience arapid growth rate when immersed in water. The slightly warm watercreates an ambient temperature that induces acclimatization of thecritters, allowing optimal growth rate. Ideally, the creatures haveexcellent water absorbing features consisting of special chemicalknow as a superabsorbent polymer. The hydrogel is sufficient forwater absorption into the mechanism, increasing the general weightand the structural outlook.
Thegrowth rate change estimated after different hour intervals depictthat the growth at every instance was nearly double the originalsize. It is evident that all living things face the problem of scale.These entail how to survive and acclimatize to the weight changesespecially at the verge of attaining maturity (Snijders,2011).Force of gravity has to be incorporated in the reasoning. Itdetermines the size and shape that most of the objects and livingcreatures have.
Similarly,the scaling factor can be induced by the use of the geometricalexamples to help in detection of the correct size. The scaling factorprovides ideal results that are key linked to the volume. Waterdisplacement method was used in the experiment to gain volume incontingency to the surface area. Scaling factor employed in theanalysis suggest that the growing intervals of the creepy critterstook the doubling fashion. Therefore, an exponential increase in thebody size and general weight is attributed to this summation.
Themeasurements of height and corresponding masses during the differenttime intervals hint out that the growth of critters increases todouble fold at various intervals. The mass estimated is attributed tothe gravitational force, which provides the real weight of the object(Snijders,2011).The critter expands from 3-inches to 8- inches in a span of two days.Once a critter has attained a length of 3 inches, the critter growsto gain 600% of the original size. The scaling factor is changed tosix, a likely possibility of exponential growth. The experiment isvalid, and it complies with the stated values of the company, whichis advertising it. The threshold estimation of the ranges validatesthe estimate of the company. Therefore, advertisement on the samesubject is not rendered futile.
Chapter18 Growth and Form
A).According to a citation in the New York Times in 1987 a statementthat a new dental rinse ` reduces plaque on the teeth by over 300%`is fallacious. The maximum attainment regarding the validity of thepercentage standards is 100%. An extrapolation of up to 300%minimizes the precision. It is a precursor statement validating thatone would have three times the size of plaque if he or she does notuse a dental rinse. Using the units and probability 300% correlatesto 300 units while 100% represents 100 units. An insinuation broughtout in the case scenario is that one would have 300 units of plaqueleft on the tooth without using the dental rinse. On the contrary,upon the use of dental rinse, one would acquire 100 units of the sameplaques on the tooth. The statement only validates the effectivenessof dental rinse to be at 33.35% and ineffectiveness to be 66.7%.
In this scenario, the use of language is confounding. For example, the words `working to decrease` is a regressive statement meaning the arithmetic should be calculated regarding depreciation. `Already Improved 100%` does not equally make sense. 100% reduction guarantees zero number of lost bags achieved the process yet is ongoing. It suggests infinity level, which is a hindrance to precision and accuracy estimation. It is an overstatement.
The third statement is off the mark. It is not valid at all. A reduction from 10% to 5% guarantees 50% reduction, not 100% as stated in the outlet. Change in percentage should not be expressed in percentage. A simple number is enough to avoid unnecessary repetition. The statement should have revolved only through a deviation in the percentages without necessarily expressing the percentage change with a qualifier. Also, 100% reduction would mean that the full objective is achieved. The statement does not conform to the accuracy levels of gauging precision by checking at the standard errors.
Examplesof Mathematically Incorrect Posts for Discussion
1.TheTrouble with Double October 12,2010
`Newspapersoften state that a cancer rate has doubled or increased by 28%’.
Accordingto my opinion, this statement is vague. There is no explicit variableindicated for comparison. The percentage changes are meaninglesssince there are no actual figures or the number.
2.My Mum Says Survey Women’s Weekly Posted by Elizabeth in October2010
`Anti-wrinkle Survey Guarantee 92% fewer wrinkles`. The statement isnot up to the precision standards. It insinuates that the validity ofthe product is not absolute hence the statement assumes theprobability gambling criteria. It suggests an inefficiency of 8% ofthe product.
3.A Hit to Your Hearing, United Kingdom Men’s Health MagazineSOURCE: Melanomapatients.org
Statement` 28 projected percentage increase in New Melanoma cases in Aussiebetween 2002 and 2011.`
Accordingto the statics carried out on Melanoma cases among men by theAustralian Institute of Health, 6,044 Australian males presentedwith Melanoma in 2005 indicating that 0.549 in 1000 affected orfurther 1 in 2000 incidence cases. If the numbers increase by 28%mentioned, it will mean that the new cases will not be comparativelyalarming as shown by the raw data that 0.707 in 1000 and -2 in 3000cases will be realized. Therefore, the calculation is not congruentenough to indicate the risk values for melanoma cases.
Snijders,T. A. (2011). Multilevelanalysis (pp.879-882). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.