[SunilNagpal]

(Right now in a train going back to my home town so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.



Edit:

Correcting myself: Non-carrier mother is not applicable here as sons in the progeny are affected. A carrier mother with an affected father, can always give birth to a carrier daughter (as one should look at the births as isolated events).

[gaurang94]

(Right now in a train going back to my home town so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.

Will explain further as and when you guys place counter arguments to this case...

Sir, if the mother is not carrier then she must be healthy.. then her sons should also be healthy because from affected father only y chromosome will inherit and X chromosome will inherit from mother.. but in given pedigree all sons are shown affected hence we figured that mother must be a carrier.

[RahulK]

(Right now in a train going back to my home town  so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.

Will explain further as and when you guys place counter arguments to this case...

Sir you are correct, In generation 1, if female is non carrier and father is the only carrier of X linked recessive gene, then the sons in generation 2 will not be effected, and all the daughters will be just the carriers for next generation.

[pragari]

I am not able to trace the answer of a particular question in the scoring key,the answer key is all messed up,the numbering of the questions in the  our responses are entirely different from the what given in the answer key.can someone help me out here.??

[CHANDA7]

(Right now in a train going back to my home town so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.

Will explain further as and when you guys place counter arguments to this case...

Sir,
In this case the male individuals of the first generation will not be affected, because their x chromosome comes from mother and none of them is affected....

(Right now in a train going back to my home town so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.

Will explain further as and when you guys place counter arguments to this case...

[SunilNagpal]

(Right now in a train going back to my home town so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.

Will explain further as and when you guys place counter arguments to this case...

Sir,
In this case the male individuals of the first generation will not be affected, because their x chromosome comes from mother and none of them is affected....

(Right now in a train going back to my home town so pardon the lack of figurative explanation , but i will try my best to put my point of view to the pedigree question. I hope this is the question which everyone is talking about?

To me option B seems the right answer (it can either be an X linked recessive one or only Y linked). Both cases hold good for the given pedigree.

Only Y linked is evidently very much applicable in the entire scenario and hence this is definitely there. Now the problem I see is that most of you are overlooking the fact that the mothers can be non-carriers as well.

xx - Xy (where X is the carrier chromosome) is very much possible in entire pedigree and if the disease is X linked recessive, females will not be affected in the given pedigree.

Will explain further as and when you guys place counter arguments to this case...

Perfectly right, female non carrier thing is not needed here. Thanks for correcting me. Even if the first mother is a carrier, isn't there always a possibility to have carrier only female progenies? I mean birth of each son/ daughter is an isolated event and there always exists a possibility of unaffected females by being a carrier...

[RahulK]

Sir,
  In this case the male individuals of the first generation will not be affected, because their x chromosome comes from mother and none of them is affected....

Perfectly right, female non carrier thing is not needed here. Thanks for correcting me. Even if the first mother is a carrier, isn't there always a possibility to have carrier only female progenies? I mean birth of each son/ daughter is an isolated event and there always exists a possibility of unaffected females by being a carrier...

Sunil Sir, now I am able to understand all the scenarios, for the given question. I am just wondering that can we challenge this question, and if yes which is the argument that can hold in favor of us.

[RONIT SHARMA]

Sunil bhai plz solve that glucose eth question. I even asked teachr today and

[RONIT SHARMA]

And asn was "115" only.

[SunilNagpal]

And asn was "115" only.

Hello Ronit,

Sorry, the internet connection is quite erratic while traveling...

Going by the question, it says that each mole of carbon in glucose gets converted into 0.25 moles of carbon in Ethanol

So in my view, one should simply look for how many carbons per mole of glucose get converted into ethanol:

So, for 1 mole of glucose having 6 carbon moles, ethanol shall be able to get 6/4 moles of carbon.

Given this fact, in 1800 gram of glucose (equivalent to 10 moles of glucose), there are 60 moles of carbon (C6H12O6). So, ideally, ethanol should get 60/4 = 15 moles of carbon.

Now, Ethanol is C2H5OH, so it's expected that one should get 7.5 moles of ethanol to satisfy the carbon balance.

So, total ethanol produced should be 7.5 X mol. Wt of ethanol