Take another quiz >

Groups of Two - Science

Guess the members of these scientific groups of two.
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
First submittedFebruary 26, 2016
Last updatedJuly 7, 2019
Times taken17,891
Rating4.27
6:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 40 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers
The average score is
Your high score is
Your best time is remaining
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Group
Answer
First two elements in the
periodic table
Hydrogen
Helium
Discoverers of the
structure of DNA
James Watson
Francis Crick
Types of nuclear energy
Fission
Fusion
Types of reproduction
Asexual
Sexual
Egg-laying mammals
Platypus
Echidna
Types of trees
Deciduous
Evergreen
Species of camel
Bactrian
Dromedary
Biggest man-killing sharks
Great White Shark
Tiger Shark
Inventors of calculus
Isaac Newton
Gottfried Leibniz
Bones of the lower arm
Ulna
Radius
Group
Answer
Elements that are liquid
at room temperature
Bromine
Mercury
Elements discovered by the Curies
Radium
Polonium
Particles in an atomic nucleus
Neutrons
Protons
Types of twins
Identical
Fraternal
Einstein's theories of relativity
Special Relativity
General Relativity
Nobel Prizes won by Marie Curie
Chemistry
Physics
Moons of Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Countries to suffer 9.0 earthquakes
since 2000
Indonesia
Japan
Two most abundant elements
in the Earth's crust
Oxygen
Silicon
Closest living relatives to
humans (species)
Chimpanzee
Bonobo
+2
level 57
Feb 27, 2016
Darn, I typed "Spacial Relativity"!
+1
level 57
Feb 27, 2016
There are three types of twins: Fraternal, Identical, and Conjoined.
+4
level 81
Feb 27, 2016
Can't conjoined be either kind? Fraternal or identical. And damn me for trying paternal and maternal and not figuring it out..
+6
level 66
Mar 15, 2016
yes conjoined isn't a separate type of twins. it can actually only happen when the twins are identical (comming from a single fertilized egg) but don't completely separate from each other. So, technically conjoined twins are identical twins.
+1
level 57
Mar 22, 2016
Ah, ok, something new!
+2
level 71
Nov 1, 2016
I tried IRISH, that should count for something
+1
level 73
Nov 28, 2017
Why not Scottish?
+2
level 62
Jul 11, 2019
You would have won a potato but unfortunately the crop has failed again this year.
+3
level 54
Jan 4, 2019
Yea I typed siamese
+4
level 77
Feb 27, 2016
There are no "man-eating" sharks, sheesh.
+1
level 76
Feb 28, 2016
Wha?
+5
level 77
Feb 29, 2016
I say that sharks do not eat people. They sometimes kill someone by mistake, but will never hunt people on purpose like some big cats can do. I have to say that I find movies like Jaws disgusting, because they spread myths about sharks, and contribute to the fear and hate that they don't deserve. Just some stats: sharks killed about a hundred people between 1990 and 2005 while we kill several millions of them every year...
+2
level 69
Feb 29, 2016
I agree with you in the sense that Sharks are really badly portrayed by the media and the arts. They are perfectly designed and amazing animals. But I wouldn't take the term "Man eating" as an animal that literally eats humans. More a colloquial term for an animal capable of killing a man with it's mouth?
+2
level ∞
Mar 5, 2016
Changed to man-killing sharks. However, its possible that oceanic whitetips would hunt and eat humans.
+2
level 67
Jun 17, 2016
I don't think any sharks actually hunt humans. I think they are going about their usual way of life and encounter humans in their natural territory and attack. It is really the humans that set out knowingly to enter the sharks natural habitat i.e. the sea.
+1
level 61
Feb 9, 2017
Seems fair.
+1
level 23
Mar 22, 2017
Most types of man eating sharks mistake humans for their normal prey. Bull sharks(which is not on here) has territory issues, and that's why they attack
+4
level 71
Mar 23, 2016
Watson and Crick were certainly not discoverers of DNA. Rather, they identified its double-helical structure, but they and others were specifically working to come up with the structure of the already-known molecule, discovered by Friedrich Miescher.
+5
level 50
Jun 17, 2016
yeap, certainly not true. Not to mention, giving sole credit of the discovery of the double helix structure would still be unfair considering the work of Chargaff, Franklin, and Wilkins (just to name a few) played a huge role in that understanding.
+1
level 68
Jun 17, 2016
I agree that the description is not a good one. The DNA had been already discovered, they just found out how it looked.
+3
level 34
Jun 18, 2016
I second this. Watson and Crick are the ones who get all the credit for a large team of people's work
+1
level ∞
Jun 18, 2016
Although that's true about nearly every discovery and invention in modern times. The days of a lone genius toiling in isolation are long gone.
+1
level ∞
Jun 18, 2016
But the clue has been fixed to say "structure" of DNA.
+1
level 67
Jul 8, 2018
I agree, the great Isaac Newton once said: " If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."......
+1
level 71
Sep 25, 2018
Isaac Newton would have seen a LOT further if he hadn't wasted so much of his time futzing around with alchemy, which he actually took seriously.
+2
level 67
Jul 11, 2019
Structure is better but Franklin deserves credit, and Wilkins less so. It was her photos that revealed the structure. Three of them got the Nobel prize - but Franklin had died by then.
+3
level 61
Jul 8, 2018
It definitely should not be a "group of two" question. Maurice Wilkins was awarded a nobel prize for his contribution to the discovery, and he and Rosalind Franklin are widely thought to have deduced the structure first, and published it in the same year as Crick and Watson.
+1
level 67
Jun 17, 2016
As this is a science quiz, shouldn't the types of twins be monozygotic and dizygotic?
+1
level ∞
Jun 18, 2016
Those would have worked if you typed them. :)
+1
level 54
Jan 4, 2019
For a long while I couldnt think of the answer ( and wasnt sure I would have heard of the englsh answer) In my language it is "one-egged' "two-egged" somehow maternal came up tried it, didnt do anything, later identical popped up. But never got back to paternal, because I thought maternal just rondomly came in to my mind and had no connection to anything.
+1
level 44
Jun 19, 2016
"Science has failed our world, science has failed our mother Earth", System of a Down anybody?
+5
level ∞
Jun 20, 2016
That song lyric makes me cringe.
+1
level 69
Apr 5, 2018
Ditto.
+1
level 71
Sep 25, 2018
Amen, and every year my cringes start looking more like sobs of despair.
+1
level ∞
Jul 7, 2019
I'm 100% pro-science except for the parts I don't believe in.
+1
level 47
Jul 7, 2018
should perhaps have allowed pigmy chimpanzee for bonobo
+5
level 67
Jul 7, 2018
I keep putting in "Rosalind Franklin" as one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, but it's not working for some reason....
+1
level 67
Jul 8, 2018
I think the question should be "Who received Nobel Prizes for Physiology and Medicine for their work on DNA"....... Rosalind Franklin did great work before them both. see ..... https://www.rosalindfranklinsociety.org/about/rosalind-franklin
+2
level 61
Jul 8, 2018
Even that question should include Maurice Wilkins. More realistically, the question should be removed because it's inaccurate to call it a group of two.
+2
level 66
Jul 11, 2019
maybe it should have been 'two scientists who got all the glory for the discovery of the structure of DNA'
+1
level 60
Jul 11, 2019
Yes, that.
+1
level 70
Feb 23, 2019
Types of reproduction: virginal - regular ... or perhaps accidental - planned ... Go and tell.
+2
level 54
Jul 11, 2019
Wth??
+2
level 66
Jul 11, 2019
For the two types of tree, 'broadleaf' and coniferous' or 'monocotyledon' and 'dicotyledon' would be better answers than 'deciduous' and 'evergreen', as they are more fundamental biological divisions.
+1
level 62
Jul 11, 2019
This must have been tough if I walked away with 4 out 5 points. I'm normally very frustrated by these science quizzes.
+1
level 35
Jul 11, 2019
I usually am below average in most tough Jetpunk quizzes.. did surprisingly well here.
+1
level 66
Jul 11, 2019
Ugh, not very charitable on spelling.
+2
level 63
Jul 12, 2019
It’s not terribly wrong, but maybe “Methods for generating nuclear energy” is better than types? At first I was very confused why weak and strong nuclear forces weren’t taking.
+1
level 53
Jul 14, 2019
Well I thought our closest relatives were orang utans- you learn something new everyday
+1
level 79
Jul 15, 2019
For the moons of Mars I always try Kang and Kodos for some reason.