Trick bio question on calcitonin?

[411309]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]28) If calcitonin were given to a person with hypercalcemia what effect would be predicted?

.

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]A return towards normal blood calcium levels
   [*]An increase in blood calcium levels
   [*]A decrease in blood calcium levels
   [*]There would be no effect.

I put C. GS says it's A. I disagree, their explanation is homeostasis is the goal which I understand, but it does not seem like this will always bring a return to normal? But it will always bring a decrease in blood calcium levels. I feel like this question is wrong, and on the mcat C would be a better response. Anyone agree?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[typicalindian]

I guess its a fair response, if they said "a person was given calcitonin" then I think C would be a better response, but since they said that the person has hypercalcemia it's more sensible to say that the person would return to normal as opposed to "a decrease in blood calcium levels". Tricky question though.

 

[gettheleadout]

I guess its a fair response, if they said "a person was given calcitonin" then I think C would be a better response, but since they said that the person has hypercalcemia it's more sensible to say that the person would return to normal as opposed to "a decrease in blood calcium levels". Tricky question though.

But a return to normal requires a decrease in blood levels, *because* the person is hypercalcemic. Both A and C are technically correct but which one is the better answer? I'm not sure.

 

[411309]

But a return to normal requires a decrease in blood levels, *because* the person is hypercalcemic. Both A and C are technically correct but which one is the better answer? I'm not sure.

That was my reasoning. Also you know there has to be a decrease in blood calcium so C seemed more logical to me. They didnt exactly give you a dose amount or the amount required to return to homeostasis, etc.

 

[gettheleadout]

That was my reasoning. Also you know there has to be a decrease in blood calcium so C seemed more logical to me. They didnt exactly give you a dose amount or the amount required to return to homeostasis, etc.

I would agree here. A makes an additional assumption, C does not.

 

[fas376]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]28) If calcitonin were given to a person with hypercalcemia what effect would be predicted?

.

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]A return towards normal blood calcium levels
   [*]An increase in blood calcium levels
   [*]A decrease in blood calcium levels
   [*]There would be no effect.

I put C. GS says it's A. I disagree, their explanation is homeostasis is the goal which I understand, but it does not seem like this will always bring a return to normal? But it will always bring a decrease in blood calcium levels. I feel like this question is wrong, and on the mcat C would be a better response. Anyone agree?

You have someone with high blood calcium. Calcitonin decreases the calcium in the blood. Since you started off with high blood calcium, you are going towards lower blood calcium (and therefore towards "normal" calcium levels). I don't think you would get asked a question like this on the MCAT. It seems like both A and C are correct.

 

[typicalindian]

You have someone with high blood calcium. Calcitonin decreases the calcium in the blood. Since you started off with high blood calcium, you are going towards lower blood calcium (and therefore towards "normal" calcium levels). I don't think you would get asked a question like this on the MCAT. It seems like both A and C are correct.

Yeah this doesn't seem like a question that they would ask on the mcat. Point is, you knew what you were talking about so don't let a silly question worry you.

 

[torshi]

Both would be correct, but in this case normal sounds like a better answer since you go from high --> normal -> low. It is tricky.

Because obv calcitonin will decrease Ca levels- they know you know this and know you will choose decrease as your answer, but you have to be smarter than them and don't fall for it.

 

[411309]

Both would be correct, but in this case normal sounds like a better answer since you go from high --> normal -> low. It is tricky.

Because obv calcitonin will decrease Ca levels- they know you know this and know you will choose decrease as your answer, but you have to be smarter than them and don't fall for it.

But my question is how do you KNOW it will result in normal levels? You don't know because they don't tell you external factors. Theres necessarily no proof that theyll return to normal levels, just that those levels will decrease.

 

[gettheleadout]

I still agree with Cole.

 

[loveoforganic]

It's just a poorly written question - it's not testing your ability to choose in a "best choice" situation like the MCAT actually does. Don't worry about it

 

[torshi]

But my question is how do you KNOW it will result in normal levels? You don't know because they don't tell you external factors. Theres necessarily no proof that theyll return to normal levels, just that those levels will decrease.

First of all like everyone said- bad question.

But I see it as.... "hyper" (too much calcium) then you use calcitonin it decreases Ca - it's not going to make it "hypo" (too low) so anything between hyper and hypo is considered normal which is true.

 

[gettheleadout]

I recognize that the question is poorly worded because both can be selected as correct answers, but here's the situation:

Hypercalcemia treated with calcitonin will result in blood calcium levels going down. This makes C true. Because calcium levels begin elevated, they will be approaching normal levels when they begin to drop. Because A specifically says "return towards" normal levels, A is equally correct. However, were A to say "return TO" normal levels, A would be not necessarily be correct. I think the confusion is here. Based on the specific wording of the answers then, A and C are equally correct.

 

[torshi]

I recognize that the question is poorly worded because both can be selected as correct answers, but here's the situation:

Hypercalcemia treated with calcitonin will result in blood calcium levels going down. This makes C true. Because calcium levels begin elevated, they will be approaching normal levels when they begin to drop. Because A specifically says "return towards" normal levels, A is equally correct. However, were A to say "return TO" normal levels, A would be not necessarily be correct. I think the confusion is here. Based on the specific wording of the answers then, A and C are equally correct.

If hypercalemia treated with calcitonin goes to normal it is assumed the levels has decreased (it won't go up). Anything between hyper and hypo is considered normal.
Also these test makers are smart and want you to only choose decrease, but if your suffering from hypercalcemia and treated with calcitonin it's reducing the levels which makes it the normal level.

Choice A says normal, and to even get to normal from "hyper" it requires decreasing levels (calcitonin doing this), so it's basically two answers in one.

Hyper (too much) + Calcitonin (decrease) = normal --> Choice A

I think choice C would be a good answer if it just asks what does Calcitonin do, but since it adds the hypercalcemia it changes the answer because now were dealing with homeostasis, and i dont think they want the answer that just describes what Calcitonin does.

 

[gettheleadout]

If hypercalemia treated with calcitonin goes to normal it is assumed the levels has decreased (it won't go up). Anything between hyper and hypo is considered normal.
Also these test makers are smart and want you to only choose decrease, but if your suffering from hypercalcemia and treated with calcitonin it's reducing the levels which makes it the normal level.

Choice A says normal, and to even get to normal from "hyper" it requires decreasing levels (calcitonin doing this), so it's basically two answers in one.

Hyper (too much) + Calcitonin (decrease) = normal --> Choice A

I think choice C would be a good answer if it just asks what does Calcitonin do, but since it adds the hypercalcemia it changes the answer because now were dealing with homeostasis, and i dont think they want the answer that just describes what Calcitonin does.

Answer A doesn't say "levels become normal," though, it says levels will approach normal, which means (starting from elevated levels) that they will decrease, which is exactly what C says. Your explanation only makes sense if A specifically says they actually end at normal levels (because then there would be some sort of distinction between the two answers, and the way they're written there isn't.)

 

[torshi]

Answer A doesn't say "levels become normal," though, it says levels will approach normal, which means (starting from elevated levels) that they will decrease, which is exactly what C says. Your explanation only makes sense if A specifically says they actually end at normal levels (because then there would be some sort of distinction between the two answers, and the way they're written there isn't.)

lets fight bro

 

[411309]

And GS said this was an "easy" questions. liars.

 

[typicalindian]

Also if you guys think about it, "return towards normal levels" implies that it is decreasing because you are told it is higher than normal in the question. So if you pick A, you're also saying C is true. But if you pick C, you aren't saying A is necessarily true, even though lowering calcitonin in a person with hypercalcemia will not only lower it, it will also return it TOWARDS normal. Thus even though both are right, A would be the BETTER answer.

 

[MedPR]

C is correct, but A is more correct. The question specifically asks about hypercalcemia, which means high plasma calcium. If the question was worded "What would you expect to happen if IV calcitonin was administered" then C would be a better answer because you don't know what the plasma calcium levels are like. For instance, they could already be below normal, so administering calcitonin would not bring them to normal levels.

A is the BEST answer.

 

[MedPR]

That was my reasoning. Also you know there has to be a decrease in blood calcium so C seemed more logical to me. They didnt exactly give you a dose amount or the amount required to return to homeostasis, etc.

Both would be correct, but in this case normal sounds like a better answer since you go from high --> normal -> low. It is tricky.

Because obv calcitonin will decrease Ca levels- they know you know this and know you will choose decrease as your answer, but you have to be smarter than them and don't fall for it.

I recognize that the question is poorly worded because both can be selected as correct answers, but here's the situation:

Hypercalcemia treated with calcitonin will result in blood calcium levels going down. This makes C true. Because calcium levels begin elevated, they will be approaching normal levels when they begin to drop. Because A specifically says "return towards" normal levels, A is equally correct. However, were A to say "return TO" normal levels, A would be not necessarily be correct. I think the confusion is here. Based on the specific wording of the answers then, A and C are equally correct.

I agree with this. If it said "return to normal" then it would be wrong (making C the best and correct answer). The point is that A is a better answer than C because the question is testing two things:

1. Whether or not you know what calcitonin does.
2. Whether or not you know what the "hyper" prefix means.

As in my previous post, if it said "what effect would calcitonin have if administered" then C would be the best answer because you don't KNOW that the patient is hypercalcemic. If you KNOW the patient is hypercalcemic, calcitonin will make their plasma Ca2+ move towards normal, or decrease.

Think about it this way. If you are a doctor and you tell the patient you are going to give them some calcitonin. They ask you "what is it going to do to me?" Are you going to tell them "it's going to drop your calcium level." Or are you going to tell them "it's going to make your calcium level get more normal." You're going to tell them the latter, because "drop your calcium level" COULD mean that it's going to make their calcium go BELOW normal, which is not true.

 

[torshi]

I agree with this. If it said "return to normal" then it would be wrong (making C the best and correct answer). The point is that A is a better answer than C because the question is testing two things:

1. Whether or not you know what calcitonin does.
2. Whether or not you know what the "hyper" prefix means.

As in my previous post, if it said "what affect would calcitonin have if administered" then C would be the best answer because you don't KNOW that the patient is hypercalcemic. If you KNOW the patient is hypercalcemic, calcitonin will make their plasma Ca2+ move towards normal, or decrease.

Think about it this way. If you are a doctor and you tell the patient you are going to give them some calcitonin. They ask you "what is it going to do to me?" Are you going to tell them "it's going to drop your calcium level." Or are you going to tell them "it's going to make your calcium level get more normal." You're going to tell them the latter, because "drop your calcium level" COULD mean that it's going to make their calcium go BELOW normal, which is not true.

Well said

 

[gettheleadout]

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the test wants the answer to be A because it gives more correct info than C does, but I think the choices suck. A is literally just another way of saying C because of the information given (the hypercalcemia). I get that that's the point, but A needs to be more specific (as I mentioned early) IMO to be technically more correct and not just the "better" answer.

 

[MedPR]

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the test wants the answer to be A because it gives more correct info than C does, but I think the choices suck. A is literally just another way of saying C because of the information given (the hypercalcemia). I get that that's the point, but A needs to be more specific (as I mentioned early) IMO to be technically more correct and not just the "better" answer.

I had a question on an AAMC that you wouldn't like either. The numerical answer was 10^-12 and the two relevent answer choices were:

A. nearly zero
B. much less than one

B is the correct answer because if you have a measuring system (to get the 10^-12 value) then "much less than one" is better than zero.

Questions with answer choices like these do show up on the real thing. This is similar to what happened in that thread about RBCs and mitochondria/oxphos. Details are very important.

 

[gettheleadout]

I had a question on an AAMC that you wouldn't like either. The numerical answer was 10^-12 and the two relevent answer choices were:

A. nearly zero
B. much less than one

B is the correct answer because if you have a measuring system (to get the 10^-12 value) then "much less than one" is better than zero.

Questions with answer choices like these do show up on the real thing. This is similar to what happened in that thread about RBCs and mitochondria/oxphos. Details are very important.

The RBC thread is different though, because you just had to know a minute fact, not interpret what the difference between two answers is. I would never say "nearly zero" for that one because what the hell does "nearly" mean? 1 x 10^-48 is closer to zero, but is it nearly? 10^-100? The only truly defensible answer there is "much less than one." I do agree that's a stupid set of choices though.

 

[411309]

I still think C is a better answer. I have to support getheleadout. Because you know C will happen no matter what. However with A, consider this- what if they gave someone only a trace amount of calcitonin? How much effect would it really have? See the wording is terrible, because it doesnt specify the exact situation..which is what youd have to know to distinguish between two closely correlated answers.

Consider this...C is right no matter what. A is more implied, true, but implied.

 

[MedPR]

I still think C is a better answer. I have to support getheleadout. Because you know C will happen no matter what. However with A, consider this- what if they gave someone only a trace amount of calcitonin? How much effect would it really have? See the wording is terrible, because it doesnt specify the exact situation..which is what youd have to know to distinguish between two closely correlated answers.

Consider this...C is right no matter what. A is more implied, true, but implied.

How is A implied? Calcitonin lower blood calcium. If you are hypercalcemic, taking calcitonin will make your blood calcium move towards normal levels. There is no implication there.

The degree of the quantitative effect it has doesn't matter. Any decrease in a hypercalcemic patient is still qualitatively (no matter how quantitatively minute) towards normal.

C is TRUE, A is BETTER because A shows that you know what "hypercalcemic" means. It answers the question more thoroughly, therefore is BETTER (best).

 

[MedPR]

I still think C is a better answer. I have to support getheleadout. Because you know C will happen no matter what. However with A, consider this- what if they gave someone only a trace amount of calcitonin? How much effect would it really have? See the wording is terrible, because it doesnt specify the exact situation..which is what youd have to know to distinguish between two closely correlated answers.

Consider this...C is right no matter what. A is more implied, true, but implied.

A return towards normal blood calcium levels

A decrease in blood calcium levels

Any decrease from a hyperanything level is a movement towards normal. Here is an analogous situation.

A block of constant mass is moving at a constant velocity. Which of the following is true?

A. net force is constant
B. net force is zero

It is true that the net force is constant, so A is correct. However, constant velocity = 0 acceleration and 0 acceleration = 0 force. So B is the better answer even though A is correct.

Zero force is a specific case of constant force just like "returning towards normal" is a specific case of "a decrease in...". The more specific, yet still true, answer is the best answer.

 

[chiddler]

as long as we are dwelling in minutiae, what if it's a lethal dose of calcitonin given to a hypercalcemic patient.

it would decrease. period.

the question doesn't indicate how much calcitonin is given. therefore, C is a better answer.

going with A doesn't say anything about the dosage given. what if dr. accidentally gave too much.

 

[gettheleadout]

I understand that the question is looking for understanding of "hypercalcemia," but consider what happens if you give the patient way too much calcitonin (and keep in mind they in no way imply how much is given.) Now their levels are moving below the norm, taking them from hypercalcemic to hypocalcemic. Which of the answers is true regardless of the amount given? C. A is sometimes true depending on the unspecified amount of calcitonin given, C is true no matter what. That's my qualm. Not that the "correct" answer isn't representative of what the test wants to test, but that the question/answer set is flawed.

Edit: Aw, Chiddler beat me.

 

[chiddler]

I understand that the question is looking for understanding of "hypercalcemia," but consider what happens if you give the patient way too much calcitonin (and keep in mind they in no way imply how much is given.) Now their levels are moving below the norm, taking them from hypercalcemic to hypocalcemic. Which of the answers is true regardless of the amount given? C. A is sometimes true depending on the unspecified amount of calcitonin given, C is true no matter what. That's my qualm. Not that the "correct" answer isn't representative of what the test wants to test, but that the question/answer set is flawed.

Edit: Aw, Chiddler beat me.

lol

 

[MedPR]

as long as we are dwelling in minutiae, what if it's a lethal dose of calcitonin given to a hypercalcemic patient.

it would decrease. period.

the question doesn't indicate how much calcitonin is given. therefore, C is a better answer.

going with A doesn't say anything about the dosage given. what if dr. accidentally gave too much.

I understand that the question is looking for understanding of "hypercalcemia," but consider what happens if you give the patient way too much calcitonin (and keep in mind they in no way imply how much is given.) Now their levels are moving below the norm, taking them from hypercalcemic to hypocalcemic. Which of the answers is true regardless of the amount given? C. A is sometimes true depending on the unspecified amount of calcitonin given, C is true no matter what. That's my qualm. Not that the "correct" answer isn't representative of what the test wants to test, but that the question/answer set is flawed.

Edit: Aw, Chiddler beat me.

Ok if you guys want to play in that pool I can make D and B correct as well.

You both are picking one specific situation not described or hinted at in any way. The following take your strategy and legitimize the other two answers.

Your patient is hypercalcemic because they have mutated PTH receptors that have higher affinity for calcitonin than the calcitonin receptors. These receptors bind calcitonin and elicit the normal PTH response (increased blood calcium). Now B is right.

Your patient is hypercalcemic because they lack calcitonin receptors. Answer now is D.

Now what?

Given ONLY what is in the question stem, A is the best answer. Even if too high of a dose of calcitonin was given, PTH is the major regulator of calcium and would not allow calcium to go too low. Further, even if there was a problem with PTH, the PREDICTED (the reason why you are giving your hypercalcemic patient calcitonin) is that their plasma calcium will move toward normal. If you PREDICTED your dose of calcitonin was going to kill the patient, why would you give it to them?

Another way to look at it is this. If your patient is hypercalcemic, your ultimate goal is to make their calcium normal. If calcitonin was simply going to decrease it, you wouldn't give them calcitonin, you would give them something else that would make it closer to normal. You are giving them some substance (calcitonin, in this case) to get the ultimately desired result (homeostasis). You predict calcitonin would do this, so you give it.

 

[chiddler]

To argue against what i wrote as well, if it is too much calcitonin it could also be too little. So little calcitonin such that there is no effect.

This is a ridiculous thing to argue though.

 

[MedPR]

To argue against what i wrote as well, if it is too much calcitonin it could also be too little. So little calcitonin such that there is no effect.

This is a ridiculous thing to argue though.

I agree. The important words are "hypercalcemic" and "predict."

In other words, what is the most likely outcome of giving a hormone to someone with elevated levels of something?

Hormones act to maintain homeostasis. You predict a given hormone will restore homeostasis. Answer A.

 

[gettheleadout]

I didn't consider the wording of the question ("predict") to be prompting you to make an assumption about the situation. That's different then, and I would agree.

 

[Barack Obama]

I had a question on an AAMC that you wouldn't like either. The numerical answer was 10^-12 and the two relevent answer choices were:

A. nearly zero
B. much less than one

B is the correct answer because if you have a measuring system (to get the 10^-12 value) then "much less than one" is better than zero.

Questions with answer choices like these do show up on the real thing. This is similar to what happened in that thread about RBCs and mitochondria/oxphos. Details are very important.

Okay this question is just stupid. I think A is a slightly better answer. Granted, under the umbrella of A you get negative and positive values, but they're all very small in magnitude and thus are nearly zero. Actually, now that I think about it, depending on the scale, "nearly zero" can include very large numbers, e.g. if you're talking about interplanetary stuff.

But with B, think about the conceivable range of values. Much less than one? So, 0.01. But also, -6000000000000000000000000.

 

[SaintJude]

Yo, "Barack" you better live up to your name in this forum...Not a democrat or republican--just saying you're presidential material here

Actually, just saw you're quote MedPr...good to know& posting below for my own reference.

I had a question on an AAMC that you wouldn't like either. The numerical answer was 10^-12 and the two relevent answer choices were:

A. nearly zero
B. much less than one

B is the correct answer because if you have a measuring system (to get the 10^-12 value) then "much less than one" is better than zero.

 

[Barack Obama]

Yo, "Barack" you better live up to your name in this forum...Not a democrat or republican--just saying you're presidential material here

Actually, just saw you're quote MedPr...good to know& posting below for my own reference.

I had a question on an AAMC that you wouldn't like either. The numerical answer was 10^-12 and the two relevent answer choices were:

A. nearly zero
B. much less than one

B is the correct answer because if you have a measuring system (to get the 10^-12 value) then "much less than one" is better than zero.

What does that even mean? A measuring system? I guess if you're measuring a volume, things would be slightly different, as you can't have negative volume (at least not in this dimension). But in that case, where all values are positive, then answers A and B become indistinguishable.

 

[MedPR]

Yea that was a pretty dumb question. I don't remember what I guessed when I did it.

 

[cfive22]

In my opinion, I think GS is wrong. If the question were to ask, "If calcitonin were produced by a person with hypercalcemia what effect would be predicted?" Then I would choose A, because the point of any hormone produced naturally by the body is homeostasis. But if calcitonin were simply to be administered to an individual with hypercalcemia, there is no telling exactly where the blood calcium concentration will end up. You only know that it will decrease. Thus, C seems like the better answer in this scenario.

 

[loveoforganic]

I agree. The important words are "hypercalcemic" and "predict."

In other words, what is the most likely outcome of giving a hormone to someone with elevated levels of something?

Hormones act to maintain homeostasis. You predict a given hormone will restore homeostasis. Answer A.

As the poster above me said, this is only the case in non-pathological self-regulated hormone release. If you administer exogenous hormone, you could very well drive past the normal point of calcium

 

[MedPR]

In my opinion, I think GS is wrong. If the question were to ask, "If calcitonin were produced by a person with hypercalcemia what effect would be predicted?" Then I would choose A, because the point of any hormone produced naturally by the body is homeostasis. But if calcitonin were simply to be administered to an individual with hypercalcemia, there is no telling exactly where the blood calcium concentration will end up. You only know that it will decrease. Thus, C seems like the better answer in this scenario.

As the poster above me said, this is only the case in non-pathological self-regulated hormone release. If you administer exogenous hormone, you could very well drive past the normal point of calcium

You guys are still speculating about a specific situation (bad dosage chosen) to answer this question.

If you are giving someone something, you are doing it because you expect a specific result. There are endless possibilities that make every single one of those listed answers true, but that's not what the question is asking you. You are PREDICTING that your dose of calcitonin will restore homeostasis in the patient.

The question does not ask you "What will happen..." it asks you "What do you predict will happen..." As in my previous post, I made it clear that we can justify every single answer if we assume certain things that are not given or hinted at in the question. That is not the point of the question though.

If you know what hypercalcemia is, and if you know what calcitonin normally functions to do, you would PREDICT that calcitonin would move plasma calcium back towards normal levels. You PREDICT your treatment of choice will produce the desired outcome of normalizing calcium levels.

pre·dict/priˈdikt/
Verb:
Say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

pos·si·bil·i·ty/ˌpäsəˈbilətē/
Noun:
A thing that may happen or be the case.

 

[MedPR]

In my opinion, I think GS is wrong. If the question were to ask, "If calcitonin were produced by a person with hypercalcemia what effect would be predicted?" Then I would choose A, because the point of any hormone produced naturally by the body is homeostasis. But if calcitonin were simply to be administered to an individual with hypercalcemia, there is no telling exactly where the blood calcium concentration will end up. You only know that it will decrease. Thus, C seems like the better answer in this scenario.

As I and others have said before, you don't even know that calcium levels will decrease. If the patient is hypercalcemic because they don't have any calcitonin receptors, then administering calcitonin would have no effect. Plasma calcium wouldn't change.

In a different situation, if the patient has mutated PTH receptors that have higher affinity for calcitonin than the calcitonin receptors and binding of these mutant PTH receptors elicits the expected response of increased PTH, then the administered calcitonin will make the patient's blood calcium go even higher.

You don't KNOW what is going to happen. You are only PREDICTING what would be expected by a treatment. You wouldn't treat symptoms if you weren't PREDICTING the best outcome.

 

[typicalindian]

Guys we all know it was a poorly worded question. You know the function of calcitonin and what would happen in this situation so let's put an end to this e-penis measuring contest and move on with our lives? I'm sure everyone in the mcat board has more important things that they need to focus on.

 

[MedPR]

I don't think it is a poorly worded question. I think it is a typical MCAT question that tests if you are paying attention and if you are able to pick the best answer choice. These types of questions are especially difficult on BS because it's the very last section and everyone is tired and not as alert as on PS.

 

[gettheleadout]

I think knowing how to "read" this type of question (where the material being tested isn't actually difficult) is something that comes with doing practice questions and tests moreso than learning biology. You agree, MedPR?

 

[loveoforganic]

If that's what they're testing, they have a funny way of explaining it, because administration of the drug has nothing to do with homeostasis

 

[MedPR]

I think knowing how to "read" this type of question (where the material being tested isn't actually difficult) is something that comes with doing practice questions and tests moreso than learning biology. You agree, MedPR?

Yes, certainly. I think we all know what hypercalcemia is and what calcitonin does (or, is expected to do). It's been said here before that every part of mcat is VR more than anything.

I've stuck around this thread this long because I don't want people to overlook how typical (in my opinion) this type of question is. Lots of people seem to be willing to write this off as "poorly worded, won't show up like this on the real thing." I don't think that's a good idea. To me that's the same thing as getting a question wrong, reading the answer, and thinking you can do it the next time without really trying to understand why you got it wrong.

MCAT tests simple concepts but tries to trick you into picking the wrong answer and I think GS did a really good job simulating that tactic in this question. The obvious answer and first thing that popped into my head after reading the question (and before seeing the answer choices) was "calcium goes down." But if you look at all the answers, you see that one of them is a more concise and better answer. MCAT writers know the shortcuts that we try to take and know exactly how to exploit them.

In the very simplest terms...

Patient has a problem. Doctor gives patient something he/she thinks will fix the problem.

Not.

Patient has a problem. Doctor gives patient something that he/she isn't sure will fix the problem.

 

[411309]

I've stuck around this thread this long because I don't want people to overlook how typical (in my opinion) this type of question is. Lots of people seem to be willing to write this off as "poorly worded, won't show up like this on the real thing." I don't think that's a good idea. To me that's the same thing as getting a question wrong, reading the answer, and thinking you can do it the next time without really trying to understand why you got it wrong.
.

I disagree. I have done over 300 bio passages and never had a question this close and misleading. Understanding why you got something wrong isn't affective if the right answer is highly debatable, which clearly it is based on evidence from this thread. The MCAT may be a critical thinking exam, but it's not going to give you two answers that are THIS closely related. That's evidence from the practice tests.

 

[premedicine555]

Sorry to bring this thread back. but in TBR there was a passage about taking Calcium supplements. Would calictonin increase or decrease? I thought because there would be an increase in Calcium in the bone (and low Calcium in blood), then Calcitonin levels would decrease. Does Calcium supplement increase BLOOD supply of Ca? Weird, because I thought the purpose of taking calcium pills is to strengthen your BONES, so wouldn't there be more calcium in the bone????

 

[SaCkO]

Sorry to bring this thread back. but in TBR there was a passage about taking Calcium supplements. Would calictonin increase or decrease? I thought because there would be an increase in Calcium in the bone (and low Calcium in blood), then Calcitonin levels would decrease. Does Calcium supplement increase BLOOD supply of Ca? Weird, because I thought the purpose of taking calcium pills is to strengthen your BONES, so wouldn't there be more calcium in the bone????

Okay Let me try explaining this because i had the same thinking like you before i took Endocrinology
Basically the way you want to think about calcium and bone deposition is that if you want to keep more of your bone mass then you will need to keep your plasma calcium high. Why? because if the plasma calcium goes low then your osteoclasts will be activated " indirectly" to break down bone by PTH in order to return plasma calcium back to normal. So if we keep calcium levels at higher levels then PTH will not be produced and thus we do not need to break bones to higher our calcium plasma concentration.
There are other factors involved here but i didn't want to mix you up , other hormones like vit D osteoprotegerin and calcitonin are always working in the body so its like a rope pull between these hormones to maintain calcium plasma concentration .