{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Charlemagne:
7/18/2013 7:29:43 AM
7
I'll take a stab at this.
While option A has the dogs shorthaired, it doesn't mean that there are no longhaired genes. It is still entirely possible that there will be a longhaired dog.
Option B however suggests that the dogs have lost that gene through constant longhaired dogs being born and therefore the gene being 'weeded out' if you will.
Edit: My first guess would have been A as well.
English
-
Ahh thanks, that makes a lot of sense! (Yeah, this isn't really the type of post that can receive free internets, but here you go.)
-
Thank you, I'll use it well.
-
Unless that was implied in the question,No clue if it was or not, I'd side with OP
-
It could be possible. Let's just pretend that the Long haired gene is 't' and the short haired gene is 'T.' Because T is dominant, the dogs will have short hair if they are Tt. Because t is recessive, that means that those dogs can't have any T gene and so must be tt. Tt dogs could still produce tt offspring.
-
That's exactly it! :D Two dogs with Tt will still have short hair, but can produce long haired offspring because there's a chance of the offspring getting the recessive trait from both parents!
-
Yeah, I get it now! :D I thought the question must have been set up with two right answers accidentally, but Charlemagne's explanation made me realize what A was actually saying.
-
Yes the squares did always make it easier. I miss when drawing could solve all my problems...
