Explanation for Question 32 From the Reading Section on the 2020 March Sat
Okay. So, um, number 32 says which data from figure two appears to be 2 inconsistent with the recent observations about the frog populations. 3 Okay. So what they observed, but the frog populations remember in the reading was 4 that if you lived at a higher altitude, 5 you would have more DNA photo. This activity. 6 If you lived in a lower altitude, you'd have less. 7 And therefore he was at a higher altitude, you would be less exposed or 8 less harmed from DNA, from UVB radiation. 9 So what looks odd, right? What does not agree with that? 10 So what would expect, um, 11 I'm trying to read this, the MNE frequency. 12 What does it have any frequency as indicator of DNA damage? 13 Okay. So the higher you are on here, 14 the more DNA you get when you have the hiring more on here, 15 the higher up you are an altitude, we expect that the higher up you 16 go in altitude, the lower, the beginning of images. So we expect the graph 17 to look like this. So then it's interesting is, 18 um, yeah, 19 we're going down, down, down here, but here we're going up. 20 So that's weird. So, so maybe this is something that doesn't agree with because 21 here you're at a higher S you give more data and image. 22 So let's look at that right here. Um, 23 this one talks about four 10 meter support, 10 meters. 24 That can't be the answer. 25 That's okay. Had population at 800 meters above sea level without 26 UV exposure experience. Last year, you went to the population at 450 27 without UVB exposure. ...