[2010] Specific question discussion

[theMoMA]

If you've got a critique, observation, or complaint about a specific question, this is where it goes. More general reflections should go in the general discussion thread. I'm creating this thread so that we can have in-depth discussion of individual questions without miring the general discussion in it.

[Dan-Don]

The lead-in to the Margaret Mead tossup said "This author's 'Fateful Hoaxing'..." I found that kinda misleading. Not that I really expect any collegiate novices to be buzzing with "Derek Freeman," but it should probably be changed to say something like "A work about this author, subtitled a 'Fateful Hoaxing,'..."

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

The Sistine Chapel is not a building, but rather is a room in the much larger Apostolic Palace.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

The other factual error I noticed that I remembered just now is that it is a widespread myth that Mozart composed Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. He composed variations on the melody of "Ah! Vous dirai-je, Maman," which is an old French children's song that uses the same melody.

[Adventure Temple Trail]

One little thing: In looking through the packets, one said "Alan Perez" leads Peru; while one of his surnames is Perez, he's much better-known as "Alan Garcia".

[theMoMA]

The lead-in to the Margaret Mead tossup said "This author's 'Fateful Hoaxing'..." I found that kinda misleading. Not that I really expect any collegiate novices to be buzzing with "Derek Freeman," but it should probably be changed to say something like "A work about this author, subtitled a 'Fateful Hoaxing,'..."

Your proposed fix is not factually correct, and doesn't seem to me to correct an actual problem.

[theMoMA]

Thanks for pointing out these issues; they've been fixed for the subsequent mirrors.

[Dan-Don]

The lead-in to the Margaret Mead tossup said "This author's 'Fateful Hoaxing'..." I found that kinda misleading. Not that I really expect any collegiate novices to be buzzing with "Derek Freeman," but it should probably be changed to say something like "A work about this author, subtitled a 'Fateful Hoaxing,'..."

Your proposed fix is not factually correct, and doesn't seem to me to correct an actual problem.

Oh yeah you're right--that's not a subtitle. It's just Ike and I were moderating together and found that to be odd. After all, a tossup on Freeman (a poor one, granted) could begin with the same four words. But, hey, you know more than I do about wording questions properly so they are less confusing to novices, so it was just a thought.

Also one of the CE bonuses says that Deepwater Horizon was owned by BP when it is in fact leased by BP.

[Dan-Don]

Something that Jonah Greenthal brought to my attention yesterday: the Four Color Map Theorem actually states that the maximum, not minimum, number of colors needed to color a map is four.

[Sima Guang Hater]

Something that Jonah Greenthal brought to my attention yesterday: the Four Color Map Theorem actually states that the maximum, not minimum, number of colors needed to color a map is four.

Isn't it that "no more than four colors are needed"?

[jonah]

Something that Jonah Greenthal brought to my attention yesterday: the Four Color Map Theorem actually states that the maximum, not minimum, number of colors needed to color a map is four.

Isn't it that "no more than four colors are needed"?

That's what I'm saying. The bonus in question begins as follows:

A theorem named for this number of colors was proven using a computer by Appel and Haken. For 10 points each:
[10] Name this minimum number of colors needed to create a map such that no two adjacent regions share a color.

[theMoMA]

You could also create a map with twenty-six colors that had no two same-colored regions touching each other. I think it is correct as worded.

[jonah]

You can also create a map that can be colored with only zero, one, two, or three colors, and no two regions of the same color touching.

[Auks Ran Ova]

You could also create a map with twenty-six colors that had no two same-colored regions touching each other. I think it is correct as worded.

It's not the minimum either; you could create a map with a hundred regions that only needs two colors it to fit the conditions. The FCT says that four is the maximum you'll ever need to use.

EDIT: yes what jonah said

[theMoMA]

Ah, I see where the problem is. Sorry, I wasn't logically thinking through what the negation of "no more than" is.

[Cody]

Packet 1, TU 3, DNA - Nothing big, but I think it would help if Hershey and Chase came after the description of the experiment.

Packet 4, TU 14, plant hormones - Presumably, the answer line should be [accept _jasmonate_s before mention], not [accept _jasmonate_s until "Kurasawa"]

Packet 5, TU 13, kami - Could possibly use a prompt on Japanese gods

Packet 7, TU 9, species - This should accept keystone species in the first sentence (and perhaps a reverse prompt on keystone predator)

[Auks Ran Ova]

Packet 4, TU 14, plant hormones - Presumably, the answer line should be [accept _jasmonate_s before mention], not [accept _jasmonate_s until "Kurasawa"]

As I recall, the reason it says what it does is that only the first clue actually applies to jasmonates specifically. Worth a look though.

[Susan]

I haven't seen the question, but since Kurosawa worked on gibberellins that's probably the point at which the next clue becomes definitively not about jasmonates.

[Cody]

Well, right after the first sentence that describes the synthesization of jasmonates, it says "Besides jasmonates, another class of these compounds was discovered during Kurasawa’s investigation of the bakanae disease." So the current answer line accepts jasmonates after it is mentioned, which isn't really that big a deal as I can't imagine someone buzzing in and saying it after it is mentioned, but I figured I'd mention it.

[ValenciaQBowl]

I read at the Chipola mirror on 10/9, and I think Andrew and the writing staff did a great job of producing an interesting and accessible set for new players. It was gratifying to see the six players of mine who were in their first tournament get excited to answer things that they had heard and learned about in early-season practice; that's surely going to motivate them to pay more attention in upcoming practices.

I have two tiny quibbles, neither of which impugn the excellent overall quality of the set; I'm curious if others will agree with me. For instance, there was a bonus in which the answers were "Discipline and Punish," "Foucault," and "Bentham," in that order I believe. Have we arrived at a point at which we think that freshmen in college are aware of Foucault if they didn't hear about him in HS quiz bowl or something? Hell, I didn't get assigned that book till grad school, though I can imagine upper-division undergrads in lit, sociology, etc, might have to read it. Or are we simply assuming that it's knowable simply because of quiz bowl? Especially with the book coming first, it seems an outlier topic compared to the rest of the lit bonuses. However, I guess it's reasonable to assume many teams can at least pick up 10 for Bentham.

The same would go for the Roland Barthes bonus I saw in a pack, though I think that was an extra. Again, this in no way changes my very high opinion of the work. I'm just curious about the epistemological basis of this--how do we know what we know about Foucault as regards quiz bowl? Is he just information passed around in packets, or are there high schools (or freshman comp classes) where some crazy teacher is having kids read him?

[theMoMA]

I think that Barthes and Foucault are often taught in intro-level lit and philosophy classes in college. Some of the questions were designed to be written on things that well-educated college students who haven't yet played quizbowl (or haven't played very much) will have probably run into in the course of study. While I agree that freshmen in college aren't necessarily going to know Foucault, the questions aren't written only for freshmen, either.

[naturalistic phallacy]

I think that Barthes and Foucault are often taught in intro-level lit and philosophy classes in college. Some of the questions were designed to be written on things that well-educated college students who haven't yet played quizbowl (or haven't played very much) will have probably run into in the course of study. While I agree that freshmen in college aren't necessarily going to know Foucault, the questions aren't written only for freshmen, either.

I'm not sure about intro level lit (since my experience there is minimal), but Foucault is definitely one of the major thinkers taught in intro level cultural studies courses and is often at least mentioned in higher level political science/political philosophy courses. While D&P is probably his most-read work, I would have personally changed the bonus around to make Foucault the first part since, at least in my experience, professors sometimes prefer to teach about Foucault's main contributions to theory (discourse, genealogy, etc...) and use whatever piece by him that they feel is most relevant to the course rather than concentrating on any one work, no matter how famous.

Then again, like Andrew said, this tournament wasn't just for freshmen.

[Adventure Temple Trail]

I think that Barthes and Foucault are often taught in intro-level lit and philosophy classes in college. Some of the questions were designed to be written on things that well-educated college students who haven't yet played quizbowl (or haven't played very much) will have probably run into in the course of study. While I agree that freshmen in college aren't necessarily going to know Foucault, the questions aren't written only for freshmen, either.

I'm not sure about intro level lit (since my experience there is minimal), but Foucault is definitely one of the major thinkers taught in intro level cultural studies courses and is often at least mentioned in higher level political science/political philosophy courses. While D&P is probably his most-read work, I would have personally changed the bonus around to make Foucault the first part since, at least in my experience, professors sometimes prefer to teach about Foucault's main contributions to theory (discourse, genealogy, etc...) and use whatever piece by him that they feel is most relevant to the course rather than concentrating on any one work, no matter how famous.

Then again, like Andrew said, this tournament wasn't just for freshmen.

In writing that bonus and what became the IR theory bonus (also in packet 3), I had another area in mind where Foucault and his ilk come up all the time: high school debate competitions. This isn't the thread for "hurrr debate sucks" or "hurrrr quizbowl and debate are totally incomparable intellectual exercises," but I estimated that a lot of intellectually-curious types who did debate in high school might be drawn to collegiate quizbowl, and that it's fair for that type of "stock knowledge" from another game to earn them points here. In Lincoln-Douglas and policy debate today, it's pretty much impossible to avoid Foucault, and Zelmay Khalilzad was unavoidable in policy, at least when I last did it maybe three years ago. It might not have played well at every site, but I (working with Andrew's answer selection) thought it would work overall.

[The King's Flight to the Scots]

Just my two cents, but I don't think we can justify asking about Foucault exclusively because people have read him for classes, since I really doubt 50% of the field (the usual conversion goal for middle parts) has done that. However, I do think he's askable because of his general cultural importance, which is reflected in his prominence in intro courses, debate competitions, and other areas, such as quizbowl itself. There's nothing wrong with testing for cultural awareness in addition to scholastic achievement, and frankly, quizbowlers depend on the former far more than on the latter.

[Adventure Temple Trail]

On another note, is this set clear now? If so, will it be posted, and will these threads be moved to the general discussion section for, well, general discussion?

EDIT: wow i can't read, thanks sam

[Flutist Wren]

It's possible that we will have a delayed mirror of this tournament on 10/30 at LSU. Final release of the packets is pending the outcome of those negotiations.