Multiple Choice: Animals

[starbug1]

This is a multiple choice question about animals that appeared on my last AP Bio test.

 

Which of the following is not true about animals?

 

A. They constitute millions of species

B. They are the most abundant living things

C. they are some of the first organisms on the earth

D. they are very diverse in nature

E. They are formed in every conceivable habitat.

 

Pick what you think is the correct answer and justify it with your reasoning.

[Dak]

I;d have said that B, C and E were incorect.

 

Bacteria are the most abundant living things, also the first living things, and animals dont live, for example, in volcanoes.

[The Peon]

B. Unless bacteria are considered animals, because I consider bacteria living organisms and they wayyyy outnumber animals. Are they animals?

[AzurePhoenix]

Indeed they're not. They fall under the domain bacteria. Animals are an entirely lower grouping (kingdom) under the domain eukarya. It's a whole taxonomic cladistic order of descent thing. Bacteria are in no way animalian.

 

A's wrong too. There aren't more than some five thousand + species of mammals (known at least) but the total figure of known and unknown probably wouldn't add up anywhere near millions.

 

Only D is correct

[gcol]

I have my doubts about D, too. Insect life appears to be far more diverse.

 

So, comparing animals to other living things, I would say none are true.

 

Hint: for the purpose of your test, there is only one correct answer, that is the one your examiner expects. Study your examiner and guess what his answer would be.

[Glider]

Insects are animals.

[gcol]

But are they animals for the purpose of the question? and if they are, then you have to decide when is an animal not an animal. There are many borderline examples, no? Each of the choices begs another question. Was it really meant to be that esoteric?

[Glider]

But are they animals for the purpose of the question?

The question is "Which of the following is not true about animals?". Insects are animals, not for the purposes of the question, nor in spite of the question, but because they are animals rather than vegetables or minerals.

...and if they are, then you have to decide when is an animal not an animal.

Well basically when it is a vegetable or a mineral.

There are many borderline examples, no? Each of the choices begs another question. Was it really meant to be that esoteric?

It's too basic to be esoteric.

[AzurePhoenix]

crap, I was thinking mammals alone rather than animals. I always do that. Well then, yes, there are millions, sorry. A thousand apologies.

 

But are they animals for the purpose of the question? and if they are, then you have to decide when is an animal not an animal. There are many borderline examples, no? Each of the choices begs another question. Was it really meant to be that esoteric?

Insects certainly don't fall into plant or fungi An animal is an animal, and insects have all the characteristics, as do corals, starfish, clams and sponges. It's mostly common misconceptions that cast peoples' understanding of this into doubt.

 

Again, sorry.

[gcol]

I place a small wager that there is at least one smarty-pants out there that can give an example of an organism that can not, uncontroversially, be neatly packaged as either animal or vegetable.

[YT2095]

E: would be my answer, as the use of EVERY implies an Absolute, and I can Certainly conceive of Many habitats that an animal couldn`t even exist in, let alone be Formed in.

[Cloud]

A) TRUE

B) FALSE (Plantlife is most abundant)

C) FALSE (bacterium were the first)

D) TRUE

E) FALSE (if 'lava'(inside a volcano) is a habitat)

[YT2095]

Mmmm... so you`re allowed to pick more than just One!

sorry I was thinking only ONE was allowed, in that case I agree with the above, although I`m not sure WHAT life was here 1`st so I`m 50/50 with the C explaination, but whatever it was, was certainly Very Simple but rugged.

[AzurePhoenix]

I agree (except microorganisms are more abundant than plants, enormous biomass, not even to think about individual numbers within their population)

[bascule]

I place a small wager that there is at least one smarty-pants out there that can give an example of an organism that can not, uncontroversially, be neatly packaged as either animal or vegetable.

 

How about protists, monerans, and fungi?

[AzurePhoenix]

For a long while most people just looked at "protists" as (mostly) single celled eukaryotes and clumped them all together regardless of their origins or evolutionary lines, so any confusion is gonna be with them. Once you get to the level of fungi, plants and animals, the separating facotrs are very distinct.

[gcol]

How about protists, monerans, and fungi?

 

If that means my small wager pays off, then yes to all three.

[herpguy]

B is wrong. I'm not sure which kingdom is though.

C is wrong. There were single cell organisms before multicellular organisms came along, so animals cannot be the first organisms to live on earth.

[starbug1]

here's how it went down. When I came upon this problem, which was one of many ambiguous question on this test, here's what I thought...

 

A. They constitute millions of species: well, with mammals probably not, but with insects of course. A is correct so therefore an incorrect answer.

 

B. They are the most abundant living things: yes, no wait, no, bacteria are the most abundant. possible correct answer.

 

C. They are some of the first organisms on the earth: this in itself is infinitely debatable so i think i'll put it as "maybe"

 

D. they are very diverse in nature: this is true so it is obviously an incorrect answer.

 

E. They are found in every conceivable habitat: NO, they are not. correct answer.

 

now its between B, C, and E.

 

B is obviously a false statement, and I concluded that C is not as strong as E, so I went with E. E is a outright false statement since animals cannot live where bacteria lives, say.

 

...when I got my test back "E" was marked wrong. Now, my professor is a pretty smart guy. He tends, however, to make frustrating multiple choice questions like these. To make a long story short, C is the correct choice, and after the complaints and debate went on, my professor also allowed the answer "B," since this was an obvious mistake on his part.

 

I felt that I should also get E as a possible answer, but as I was the only one to see it as a correct answer, he faithfully shook his head.

 

Does anyone else think that "E" should have also been a correct answer, or should the question at least been eliminated to prevent any more controversy? Regardless, I felt cheated.

[starbug1]

E: would be my answer, as the use of EVERY implies an Absolute, and I can Certainly conceive of Many habitats that an animal couldn`t even exist in, let alone be Formed in.

 

This is exactly what I thought.

[gcol]

Hint: for the purpose of your test' date=' there is only one correct answer, that is the one your examiner expects. Study your examiner and guess what his answer would be.[/quote']

 

So it appears I was cynically on the right track.

Cynics rule, o.k.

[Sisyphus]

Haha, why is there confusion about whether insects are animals? They're in the animal kingdom, yes? Kingdom animalia, phylum arthropodia, subphylum hexapoda, class insecta? What other definition of "animal" could possibly be meant?

 

Anyway, as per the question... it is horrible. The answers are too vague.

 

A) Perhaps true, although the number of identified species of animal is certainly not in the millions, so... false? Are we supposed to estimate? Based on what? Does it only include currently living species?

 

B) False, certainly. Bacteria are the most abundant.

 

C) Most of you put false, but keep in mind it doesn't say "the first," it says "some of the first." This is just vague and subjective enough that I'm going to go ahead and say true.

 

D) This is also a subjective judgement, and therefore you can't definitively say it is or isn't true. Therefore it's not not true, therefore it's not the answer.

 

E) This is quite obviously false, since I can conceive of all sorts of environments in which there is no life. But once again, this is subjective (what's conceivable depends on imagination!) and extremely poorly worded. I suspect what they mean is, animals exist in lots of very different environments, which is true.

 

That said, it seems like the answer they're looking for is B. It's really the only quantifiable one, and it's definitely false. Further, all the others seem to be making a point about what animals are: very diverse, ancient, and widespread. But it's still a very stupid question.

[starbug1]

 

That said' date=' it seems like the answer they're looking for is B.[/b'] It's really the only quantifiable one, and it's definitely false. Further, all the others seem to be making a point about what animals are: very diverse, ancient, and widespread. But it's still a very stupid question.

 

 

To make a long story short, C is the correct choice

 

yes, it is very vague and stupid.