Can't Judge a Powder B

[EpicFailure]

FAQ:
"05/14/2011 - 12:31 I understand each question needs to be supported by observations that have been previously numbered. Will each question be limited to one supporting observation, or can it be supported by multiple observations.
Yes, one complete observation. Complete is the active word here. What does the powder look like? All observations based on this on this question, should be numbered as one observation. My instructions tell the students that they should number each observation and indent if their observation runs longer than that line. They will ONLY be able to make ONE observation to answer a question."

Do you think it would be acceptable if we list each characteristic of the powder for a question like "what is the appearance of the powder"?

[hpfananu]

Ok so that new FAQ post says you can only have one observation per question....
Uh..what if it asks what the luster is? And the physical characteristics? You'd end up using the same observation (the long one with all your physical characteristics) for luster as well...would that be ok?

[poparteeb2]

Oh wow. that clarification really sucks.....so um, basically if my observation was like this
1. ASDSDWERWERWERWERWER
and it went past the line, it'd be like
1. ASDFWERWESDGWERWERD
WERWERWERWERW
because you'd have to indent?
and also for conductivity,
they say you just have to put high/low/none, and NOT the numbers?
FINALLY, would you always put the water as "0" because it's distilled? no matter what your conductivity tester says? my conductivity tester might just be really sensitive, because when we get tap water it has a low conductivity....

[EpicFailure]

I think it's fine if you put 1 observation for multiple questions. The question is, last year Nationals, the 1st place team put multiple observations for a single question, and they got full points. I'm not sure about the event supervisor's definition of "1 complete observation". Does she/he mean that it can only be one number?

[hpfananu]

According to the new clarification, only one number.

[Cheesy Pie]

At regs, we had multiple observations for some, but we got first. What if you have many observations supporting a question?

[EpicFailure]

Suppose the question asked for the volume and the weight of the powder.

Do you just put:

Obs. # 4.2mL of the powder was given.
The beaker weighed 29.6g
The beaker and the powder weighed 30.7g
Would it be considered an inference if you say that the powder weighed 1.1g in your observation (suppose that you zeroed the beaker weight)? Also, would the above count as 1 observation?

[Cheesy Pie]

Combine them into one observation, and do math to try to make it not look like an inference.

[poparteeb2]

For the observations, if you wrote a caption such as Powder+H2O and then wrote numerical observations such as "clear solution" under it, would that observation garner full points? Or would you have to write "powder+H2O is clear, powder+H2O has tiny crystals" to get full credit? (what I mean is that you have to repeat Powder+H2O over and over again. Also, sorry if I've asked this before...XP.

[rocketman1555]

Suppose the question asked for the volume and the weight of the powder.

Do you just put:

Obs. # 4.2mL of the powder was given.
The beaker weighed 29.6g
The beaker and the powder weighed 30.7g
Would it be considered an inference if you say that the powder weighed 1.1g in your observation (suppose that you zeroed the beaker weight)? Also, would the above count as 1 observation?

EDIT (I hadn't seen the rule clarification about the number of observations): I would write them down as 1 observation, and then do the math on the answer sheet. I would consider just having the powder's mass as being an inference.

For the observations, if you wrote a caption such as Powder+H2O and then wrote numerical observations such as "clear solution" under it, would that observation garner full points? Or would you have to write "powder+H2O is clear, powder+H2O has tiny crystals" to get full credit? (what I mean is that you have to repeat Powder+H2O over and over again. Also, sorry if I've asked this before...XP.

This depends on who is judging the event, I would suggest that you at least put a ditto sign ( " ) below powder+H2O, just so it is clear that you are repeating that part of the observation.