Answered

Compare the Predicted Values to the Simulated Values

\begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|c|c|}
\cline { 2 - 5 }
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \begin{tabular}{c}
Black Fur and \\
Black Eyes
\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c}
Black Fur and \\
Red Eyes
\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c}
White Fur and \\
Black Eyes
\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c}
White Fur and \\
Red Eyes
\end{tabular} \\
\hline
Predicted Fraction & [tex]$9 / 16$[/tex] & [tex]$3 / 16$[/tex] & [tex]$3 / 16$[/tex] & [tex]$1 / 16$[/tex] \\
\hline
Predicted Percentage & [tex]$56.25 \%$[/tex] & [tex]$18.75 \%$[/tex] & [tex]$18.75 \%$[/tex] & [tex]$6.25 \%$[/tex] \\
\hline
Simulated Fraction & [tex]$5 / 10$[/tex] & [tex]$2 / 10$[/tex] & [tex]$2 / 10$[/tex] & [tex]$1 / 10$[/tex] \\
\hline
Simulated Percentage & [tex]$50 \%$[/tex] & [tex]$20 \%$[/tex] & [tex]$20 \%$[/tex] & [tex]$10 \%$[/tex] \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

In the dihybrid cross, [tex]$\square$[/tex] of the parents had black fur and black eyes.
The offspring [tex]$\square$[/tex]



Answer :

GinnyAnswer
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.

Other Questions