Westonci.ca is the premier destination for reliable answers to your questions, brought to you by a community of experts. Get immediate answers to your questions from a wide network of experienced professionals on our Q&A platform. Get detailed and accurate answers to your questions from a dedicated community of experts on our Q&A platform.
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.
We appreciate your visit. Hopefully, the answers you found were beneficial. Don't hesitate to come back for more information. Your visit means a lot to us. Don't hesitate to return for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. We're here to help at Westonci.ca. Keep visiting for the best answers to your questions.