|
ANT 211
Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology
with Dr. Albert
Answers to Practice Test
Answers and explanations appear in lavender, below the original question.
The simplest, most inclusive definition of a bone fracture is:
When both a bone and surrounding vessels break
When a bone is broken in half
When a force causes a discontinuity in bone, either slight or severe
A hairline split in bone
An unnatural distortion of bone
Answer C is correct. Answer A is incorrect because a bone can fracture without damage to blood vessels. Answer B is incorrect because bone can break in more than one place. Answer D is incorrect because fractures can be small or large. Answer E is incorrect because bone can be distorted without being fractured.
The first histologic changes in the healing process
of bone occur when?
Within a few minutes after injury
Within a few days after the injury
Not until after the first week or two
After the hard callus forms
During remodeling
Answer B is correct, based on class notes. Burns, Chapter 13 (p. 211) provided more detailed information on the early stages of healing, and more generalized information on the latter stages, compared to class notes. Be sure to review both notes and text simultaneously when studying (not sequentially) for the complete picture of bone healing. Also, be sure to know why assessing the timing of a healing or healed injury is important in forensic cases. You do not have to learn the exact numbers of days, weeks, or months--just be aware of the general time span as shown in the sample answers above.
According to Burns, bone healing may be delayed by which of the following factors?
Severe damage, advanced age, poor nutrition
Inadequate immobilization, if a person is female, a vegetarian diet
Severe damage, inadequate immobilization, if a person is male
Inadequate immobilization, young age, poor nutrition
Advanced age, a vegetarian diet, disease and infection
Answer A is correct. The more severe the trauma, the longer it takes to heal. Advanced age means bone remodeling is slower. Poor nutrition means the body works harder to provide adequate materials needed in the repair of tissues (including the hard tissues, or bone). Answer B is incorrect because sex does not affect the rate of bone healing, nor does a meat or meatless diet, so long as proteins are acquired in proper amounts (good nutrition, based on any number of food combinations and variety); however, if a broken bone is not adequately immobilized it can delay healing--since two out of three factors are wrong, the entire answer choice is wrong.. Answer C is incorrect because, again, sex does not affect the rate of bone healing. Answer D is incorrect because bones actually do heal faster at a young age. Answer E is incorrect because a vegetarian diet, if adequate nutrients are available, does not inhibit bone healing, though advanced age, disease and infection do.
If fresh parry fractures to the forearm bones are found on a skeleton at a death scene, what might be determined about the force impacting the bones and the most likely timing of the injury?
The bones were broken as a result of shearing forces, postmortem
The bones were broken as a result of compression forces, antemortem
The bones were broken as a result of torsion forces, perimortem
The bones were broken as a result of bending forces, perimortem
The bones were broken as a result of bending forces, postmortem
Answer D is correct. Bending forces impact the bone from the side, at nearly right angles and parry fractures are usually defense wounds occurring perimortem (around the time of death). Answer A is incorrect; shearing forces do not result in parry fractures and parry fractures do not typically occur after death. Answer C is incorrect since torsion forces do not result in parry fractures, though parry fractures do occur perimortem. Given that one part of this answer choice is incorrect, the entire answer choice is incorrect. Answer E is incorrect since parry fractures do not typically occur postmortem, though the do result from bending forces. See class notes for information on types of forces and resultant bone injuries.
What can be interpreted from bones that appear white, gray,
and blue?
They belonged to someone experiencing perimortem disease.
They belonged to someone who was buried in a shallow grave for a short time.
They belonged to someone who whose bones were exposed to sunlight, erosion, or general weathering.
They belonged to someone whose body was burned perimortem.
They belonged to someone who died many years ago--most likely a historic figure.
Answer D is correct. Bones are naturally ivory colored and disease does not typically discolor bone (Answer A, incorrect). Burial may result in a mottled appearance, and staining due to soil and bodily fluid staining but not of a white, gray or bluish color (Answer B is incorrect). Sunlight may bleach bone, but the color wouldn't be gray or blue; erosion and general weathering alter the texture of bone, but not always the color (and the color wouldn't be white, gray or blue, so Answer C is incorrect). Finally, the white, gray and blue colors wouldn't all appear on a body that died many years ago--again, the color alterations would be minimum; largely, there'd be texture and or shape changes (Answer E is incorrect). See class notes for information on burning, weathering, erosion, sunbleaching and other environmental influences on bone as well as disease. See Burns, Chapter 12, for information on what types of disease affect bone and how they affect bone.
Why was it important to understand the historic background of the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro in order to examine his bones and confirm his identity?
The historic information relayed his manner of death, and trauma analysis from the bones was critical in confirming his identity.
The historic information made it clear that Pizarro was of European ancestry, and ancestry information was critical in distinguishing Pizarro's bones from those of a Hispanic (European and Native American) male.
The historic information provided Pizarro's age at death (early 60's), where age was critical in distinguishing two sets of bones where one set could've been Pizarro and the other was a man in a church who was to be made a saint.
The historic information explained how Pizarro's body was moved numerous times after his death, and the final resting place of his remains was critical in confirming his identity.
The historic information pinpointed when Pizarro was assassinated, and the age of the bones (how long they'd been dead) was consistent with this time period; thus, Pizarro's identity was confirmed.
Answer A is correct. Answer B is incorrect because of two sets of remains examined, one was deemed European, but the it wasn't made clear what the ancestry of the other set of remains were. Answer C is incorrect because both sets of remains were elderly, so age wouldn't distinguish the two sets of remains as accurately as the trauma (a person to be made a saint would most likely NOT have extensive trauma, indicating a violent life). Answer D is incorrect--more than one body could be moved over many years, the body itself and not only the location of the body, would be important to examine. Answer E is incorrect because no method of aging bones can pinpoint an exact year; estimations are provided in ranges due to the variable nature of bone changes over time. See Maples and class notes on historic cases for more information and or clarification of the above.
Which of the following best describes a major difference between a forensic anthropologist working on a typical homicide versus a forensic anthropologist working on a case involving human rights violations?
A homicide case usually involves establishing identity, time of death, or trauma for one or two individuals; a human rights case usually involves establishing these data for large numbers of individuals.
A homicide case usually involves working with a forensic pathologist; a human rights case does not involve forensic pathologists.
Homicide cases and human rights cases both involve the work of teams of forensic science experts.
A homicide case usually involves the forensic anthropologist's assessment of gunshot trauma (one of the more common types of homicide trauma), whereas a human rights case usually involves a forensic anthropologist's assessment of sharp force injuries (of the more common types of trauma in these cases).
A homicide case usually involves a greater amount of time from the forensic anthropologist in terms of osteological analysis; a human rights case usually involves bones being examined rather quickly since US forensic anthropologists can only be abroad (where human rights violations typically occur) for limited amounts of time for safety reasons.
Answer A is correct. Answer B is incorrect because forensic pathologists participate in both homicide cases and human rights cases. Answer C is incorrect because the question asks for a major difference not a similarity, and because homicide cases may or may not involve teams of experts whereas human rights cases typically always involve teams of experts. Answer D is incorrect because there is no most popular method of homicide (blunt force, sharp force, gunshot are all common) nor are most deaths resulting from human rights violations caused by sharp force injuries--all sorts of trauma have been evidenced (blunt force, gunshot--high powered assault rifles, bombs, and sharp force). Answer E is incorrect--human rights cases can take much more time in terms of osteological analysis because multiple bodies are examined as opposed to one or two in a homicide case. Teams of forensic experts may rotate visits, and many individuals stay abroad for long periods of time (a few months at a time). See class notes and Burns Chapter 15 for more information and clarification.
Return to Practice Test questions