Answer :
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.
