PBS/PBT · September 18 · D09 · Case A STATIC · Period 1-2
Sample P: separate practice, not your case
This worked model uses the existing training-kit Sample P and two practice reference labels. It is not evidence for Case A or Case B. Use the structure, not these labels or answers, in your worksheet.
Start: Read the model, then return to your own-case worksheet. Digital deadline: September 18, 11:59 PM.
Sample P: separate practice, not your case
This worked model uses the existing training-kit Sample P and two practice reference labels. It is not evidence for Case A or Case B. Use the structure, not these labels or answers, in your worksheet.
Read the supplied observations
The Sample P record describes grainy liquid with small dark clumps in the anti-A well, and smooth, even liquid in the anti-B well. In the supplied record that is anti-A yes, anti-B no. This is text describing the practice wells, not an image you personally examined or a test you ran.
Using R2's classroom rule, anti-A clumping only gives the model call A. Practice Person 1's reference card is labeled A; Practice Person 2's card is labeled O.
Model the comparison and its limit
| Practice comparison | Supplied information | Model conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Sample P and Person 1 | A compared with A | Same on this one classroom ABO feature; donor not identified |
| Sample P and Person 2 | A compared with O | Different under this classroom rule; no conclusion about presence, timing, innocence or guilt |
A complete comparison statement keeps both sides visible: “Sample P and Person 1 match on the supplied classroom ABO type A. That shared type does not identify the donor.” For Person 2: “Sample P's model type A differs from Person 2's stated type O. This is a mismatch in this one comparison, not proof about a person's actions.”
Your case may give a reference only as “other than B” or “other than O.” Keep that category in your comparison. Do not invent a specific replacement type.
Separate arithmetic model
The existing made-up practice value is 150, with a supplied comparison range of 70 to 99. No measurement unit is supplied.
- Compare with the interval: 150 is above its upper limit of 99.
- Find the difference: 150 − 99 = 51 points above.
- Find percent of the upper limit: 150 ÷ 99 × 100 = about 152% of the upper limit.
The last label is “percent of,” not “percent above.” Your B3 task uses 180, not 150. Show your own calculation and keep this generic practice separate from any case reading or clinical interpretation.
A separate hypothetical check
B2 imagines a stain and a reference with the same type. It is not another observation in your case. E2 imagines a type-B stain and a type-O reference; this is practice for both sections. Apply R3's one-feature comparison limit rather than using either hypothetical to change your case rows.
The model and these checks do not require another upload. Complete Parts A–E and your late-record log in the one serology worksheet.
Evidence ID + anti-A observation + anti-B observation
Make the model type call from the two supplied observations.
Same feature / different feature / information not supplied
Keep an "other than" category when that is all the record gives.
No donor identity, innocence, guilt or timeline conclusion.
Reported collection-plan explanation + separate practice calculation
Case A: exact display, time, supplied unit, labeled context; HI stays HI.
Find your own-case evidence ID and both supplied clumping observations. Use the classroom rule in R2 to make the model type call. Compare that call with the supplied reference information. State agreement or disagreement only for this one feature. If information is missing, say so; do not fill an “other than” category with a guessed exact type. Add the comparison limit. Then finish the collection-plan explanation and separate arithmetic practice in the same worksheet. In the final ten minutes, log only your own case's late record. Preserve its display or category, source and missing context. The finished worksheet does not claim a test, collection, DNA identity or clinical conclusion.
Optional restart cue
Find the next unanswered task ID. Use R2 for the typing grid, R3 for comparisons, R4 for the collection-plan explanation, R5 for the practice calculation and R6 for the late record. Do not switch to the other case or create a second product.
Connection to PLTW
Related PLTW reference:
- Activity 1.1.4 Blood Evidence
- Activity 1.1.5 DNA Evidence
This John Hay original worksheet practices model comparisons, careful record keeping and evidence limits connected to PLTW Activities 1.1.4 Blood Evidence and 1.1.5 DNA Evidence. It does not certify official activity completion. The complete required explanation is here; background links are support, not extra assignments.
John Hay original local work connected by title; no official completion claim.
Turn in one worksheet
Complete one serology worksheet, Parts A–E plus your case's late-record log. Hand the paper worksheet to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF to this section's assignment by September 18 at 11:59 PM. Use your period and investigator code. Do not submit twice; keep notebook pages in your notebook.
The model and these checks do not require another upload. Complete Parts A–E and your late-record log in the one serology worksheet.
Case A: submit to Wk4 D09 · Whose Blood, Whose DNA (PLTW 1.1.4)Keep today's worksheet for the next assigned case lesson. Later evidence must be supplied before you use it; do not assume a DNA or clinical result already exists.
Sources and optional background
F1 shows the paper-record workflow. The separate Sample P example models a comparison, and its 150 example models the arithmetic. Guided notes can support your work but are not another submission. Before any separate teacher-directed physical collection, complete the existing preparation requirement and use the approved instructions. This worksheet does not grant a practical pass. Carry your record to the next assigned case lesson, without assuming that it already has a DNA or clinical result.
- S1. NCBI ABO background
cited in R2.
- S2. NIJ comparison-result background
cited in R3.
- S3. NIJ preservation background
cited in R4.
- S4. NIJ-supported rootless-hair research
cited in R4.
- S5. FDA display explanation
cited in R6.
- S6. FDA fasting-context explanation
cited in R6.
- S7. Antibody-binding background
cited in R6.
A matching type does not identify a donor. No DNA profile is supplied for this worksheet, so do not make a DNA identification. The finished worksheet does not claim a test, collection, DNA identity or clinical conclusion.