Which comparison correctly distinguishes distance methods from maximum likelihood?
- Distance minimizes changes; likelihood counts recovered splits
- Distance fits pairwise estimates; likelihood scores the alignment
- Distance estimates fossil ages; likelihood assigns truth probabilities
Why can raw differences between aligned sequences underestimate the number of substitutions?
- Repeated substitutions can leave matching end states
- Bootstrap resampling deletes all matching alignment sites
- Each observed mismatch records every earlier substitution
How is a replicate alignment made in an ordinary sequence bootstrap?
- Sample alignment columns without replacement to the input length
- Sample alignment columns with replacement to the original length
- Shuffle each species' bases separately and retain the resulting matches
An alignment contains slow-changing and fast-changing sites. Which feature can a substitution model include to represent this?
- Different substitution rates among alignment sites
- One substitution rate determined by the number of sampled species
- No repeated substitutions wherever the observed bases match
A paper reports that a split appears in 42 of 100 ordinary bootstrap trees. Your conclusion requires that split to be resolved. What should you do?
- Treat the published split as resolved
- Interpret 42 percent as the probability that the split is true
- Report uncertainty and avoid relying on a resolved split
A weakly supported split comes from a short, carefully checked alignment. Few sites distinguish the competing relationships. Which response targets this limitation?
- Collect more reliably aligned, informative sites
- Run extra bootstrap replicates to gain new sites
- Redraw the branch arrangement to make the existing split look certain
High ordinary bootstrap support rules out systematic error caused by a poorly fitting substitution model.
Circle one: True False
A raw-distance tree groups two fast-evolving lineages, but a model-based analysis separates them. Before further checks, which conclusion is justified?
- The model-based grouping has been proved historically true
- The raw-distance grouping is correct because matching bases cannot mislead
- The disagreement calls for checking data and model assumptions