Re: ACF Regionals West: brief results and comments

> Speaking strictly for myself, I enjoyed the questions quite a bit. 
I > thought the tossups were for the most part very good, but I 
wasn't 
> so fond of many of the bonuses. In particular, it seemed as though 
> the bonuses had a pattern of one gettable part, one gettable part 
if 
> you're really knowledgeable, and one part gettable if you wrote 
the 
> question. In particular, one question comes to mind: the 
Australian 
> geography bonus. The third part of that bonus asked for the second 
> highest mountain in Australia (Mt. Townsend, if anyone cares). 
Now, 
> I don't know squat about geography, but Jeff Hoppes's jaw dropped 
> when he heard the question. My guess is that if he didn't know it, 
> no one but the question writer probably knew the answer either.
> 

The phenomenon Jerry pointed out was also true in biology.  While 
there was only one particularly egregious toss-up (cytokinins; an 
analogy for a history toss-up would be something like "This event 
involved people, who took action by signing a document at a 
meeting.  FTP, name this conference.  Answer: _Congress_"), the 
third part of several boni were outrageously difficult.  My 
perception could be skewed, but if more than two teams in the nation 
came up with LHO, duct of Wirsung, and Glisson's capsule I'd be 
quite surprised.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST