You are right that our data may have been skewed, but I don't believe it skewed a significant amount that it would have completely changed our results/claim. No matter what the amount of cells collected were, there should still be a greater amount of interphase cells than any other cells, and that is shown in our data.
I thought the reasoning for your claim was well worded and it backed up your claim and evidence nicely. You made your argument clear, but I did have trouble seeing the evidence itself on the slides. Next I would say just make it more clear to see since the blog does shrink everything down a little.
I thought the null hypothesis for your first claim lacks some specifics in regards to the cell and I thought that you justification for your first claim could have been stronger. However, I thought that you justified yourself really well for the second claim.
Thankyou, I agree that we should have included more information about lectin. Some background information may have been more fit. They're able to stimulate cell division by triggering controls at the cell membrane, and lectin is a very important protein in the cell.
I think your justification for the lectin claim could of included more information about lectin binding to the cell membrane and specifically how that prohibits a cell from undergoing mitosis. I do like your last reasoning on the caffeine justification slide.
I think your reasoning based on the data you've gathered makes logical sense, as the data shows through a chi square test that there is no significant difference between lectin and non-lectin exposed cells. However, I would suggest that you include something about the possibility of experimental error in your slides because it could have potentially altered the data. I like your understanding of the second question though, as your reasoning is well articulated.
I think your reasoning based on the data you've gathered makes logical sense, as the data shows through a chi square test that there is no significant difference between lectin and non-lectin exposed cells. However, I would suggest that you include something about the possibility of experimental error in your slides because it could have potentially altered the data. I like your understanding of the second question though, as your reasoning is well articulated.
I liked that you clearly stated your null hypotheses. The reasoning for both claims was well worded and easy to understand. I do agree with Jazmean that I would have liked to know more information on how the lectin inhibits mitosis by, as you said, "binding to the cell membrane of the onion". Was that an educated guess or is it backed up by actual research?
Do you believe that for your control, mainly referring to interphase, was skewed due to being bias while searching for cells?
ReplyDeleteYou are right that our data may have been skewed, but I don't believe it skewed a significant amount that it would have completely changed our results/claim. No matter what the amount of cells collected were, there should still be a greater amount of interphase cells than any other cells, and that is shown in our data.
DeleteI thought the reasoning for your claim was well worded and it backed up your claim and evidence nicely. You made your argument clear, but I did have trouble seeing the evidence itself on the slides. Next I would say just make it more clear to see since the blog does shrink everything down a little.
ReplyDeleteThank you, and you're right, the sizing was a bit off for the powerpoint and we will make sure to keep that in mind for future posts.
DeleteI thought the null hypothesis for your first claim lacks some specifics in regards to the cell and I thought that you justification for your first claim could have been stronger. However, I thought that you justified yourself really well for the second claim.
ReplyDeleteThankyou, I agree that we should have included more information about lectin. Some background information may have been more fit. They're able to stimulate cell division by triggering controls at the cell membrane, and lectin is a very important protein in the cell.
DeleteI think your justification for the lectin claim could of included more information about lectin binding to the cell membrane and specifically how that prohibits a cell from undergoing mitosis. I do like your last reasoning on the caffeine justification slide.
ReplyDeleteI think your reasoning based on the data you've gathered makes logical sense, as the data shows through a chi square test that there is no significant difference between lectin and non-lectin exposed cells. However, I would suggest that you include something about the possibility of experimental error in your slides because it could have potentially altered the data. I like your understanding of the second question though, as your reasoning is well articulated.
ReplyDeleteI think your reasoning based on the data you've gathered makes logical sense, as the data shows through a chi square test that there is no significant difference between lectin and non-lectin exposed cells. However, I would suggest that you include something about the possibility of experimental error in your slides because it could have potentially altered the data. I like your understanding of the second question though, as your reasoning is well articulated.
ReplyDeleteI liked that you clearly stated your null hypotheses. The reasoning for both claims was well worded and easy to understand. I do agree with Jazmean that I would have liked to know more information on how the lectin inhibits mitosis by, as you said, "binding to the cell membrane of the onion". Was that an educated guess or is it backed up by actual research?
ReplyDelete