At Westonci.ca, we connect you with experts who provide detailed answers to your most pressing questions. Start exploring now! Explore thousands of questions and answers from knowledgeable experts in various fields on our Q&A platform. Join our platform to connect with experts ready to provide precise answers to your questions in different areas.
Sagot :
Let's delve into the specifics provided by the comparison table and analyze the differences between the predicted and simulated values for the offspring's traits in a dihybrid cross.
First, let's review the expected (predicted) and observed (simulated) fractions and percentages:
### Predicted Values:
- Black Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{9}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 56.25\% \)[/tex]
- Black Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{3}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 18.75\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{3}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 18.75\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{1}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 6.25\% \)[/tex]
### Simulated Values:
- Black Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{5}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 50\% \)[/tex]
- Black Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{2}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 20\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{2}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 20\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{1}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 10\% \)[/tex]
Now, let's fill in the blanks:
"In the dihybrid cross, [tex]\(\boxed{55.2\%}\)[/tex] of the parents had black fur and black eyes.
The offspring [tex]\(\boxed{52.5\%}\)[/tex]"
This would correctly reflect a described amended task with specified trait coverage.
Here is a comprehensive breakdown of the correct table provided:
1. Black Fur and Black Eyes:
- The predicted value is 56.25%, whereas the simulated value is 50%.
- Difference: The predicted value is higher by [tex]\( 56.25\% - 50\% = 6.25\% \)[/tex].
2. Black Fur and Red Eyes:
- The predicted value is 18.75%, whereas the simulated value is 20%.
- Difference: The simulated value is higher by [tex]\( 20\% - 18.75\% = 1.25\% \)[/tex].
3. White Fur and Black Eyes:
- The predicted value is 18.75%, whereas the simulated value is 20%.
- Difference: The simulated value is higher by [tex]\( 20\% - 18.75\% = 1.25\% \)[/tex].
4. White Fur and Red Eyes:
- The predicted value is 6.25%, whereas the simulated value is 10%.
- Difference: The simulated value is higher by \( 10\% - 6.25\% = 3.75\%.
By examining these results, we can see the simulated outcomes provide a real-world alignment of observed genetic cross outcomes, although deviating slightly from theoretical predictions. This deviation is expected as real-world outcomes can differ due to environmental, biological, or sample size constraints.
First, let's review the expected (predicted) and observed (simulated) fractions and percentages:
### Predicted Values:
- Black Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{9}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 56.25\% \)[/tex]
- Black Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{3}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 18.75\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{3}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 18.75\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{1}{16} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 6.25\% \)[/tex]
### Simulated Values:
- Black Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{5}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 50\% \)[/tex]
- Black Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{2}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 20\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Black Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{2}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 20\% \)[/tex]
- White Fur and Red Eyes:
- Fraction: [tex]\( \frac{1}{10} \)[/tex]
- Percentage: [tex]\( 10\% \)[/tex]
Now, let's fill in the blanks:
"In the dihybrid cross, [tex]\(\boxed{55.2\%}\)[/tex] of the parents had black fur and black eyes.
The offspring [tex]\(\boxed{52.5\%}\)[/tex]"
This would correctly reflect a described amended task with specified trait coverage.
Here is a comprehensive breakdown of the correct table provided:
1. Black Fur and Black Eyes:
- The predicted value is 56.25%, whereas the simulated value is 50%.
- Difference: The predicted value is higher by [tex]\( 56.25\% - 50\% = 6.25\% \)[/tex].
2. Black Fur and Red Eyes:
- The predicted value is 18.75%, whereas the simulated value is 20%.
- Difference: The simulated value is higher by [tex]\( 20\% - 18.75\% = 1.25\% \)[/tex].
3. White Fur and Black Eyes:
- The predicted value is 18.75%, whereas the simulated value is 20%.
- Difference: The simulated value is higher by [tex]\( 20\% - 18.75\% = 1.25\% \)[/tex].
4. White Fur and Red Eyes:
- The predicted value is 6.25%, whereas the simulated value is 10%.
- Difference: The simulated value is higher by \( 10\% - 6.25\% = 3.75\%.
By examining these results, we can see the simulated outcomes provide a real-world alignment of observed genetic cross outcomes, although deviating slightly from theoretical predictions. This deviation is expected as real-world outcomes can differ due to environmental, biological, or sample size constraints.
Your visit means a lot to us. Don't hesitate to return for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Thank you for visiting Westonci.ca, your go-to source for reliable answers. Come back soon for more expert insights.
