In that context, I might argue the actual opposite would be non-coding DNA. As both dominant and recessive are still functional DNA, they’re not so much opposites as they are alternatives.
But I’ve made those kinds of arguments in school enough, to know the teacher still probably wouldn’t accept my debating semantics. Even if they admit I’m right.
Yeah i did that a fair bit in school until i realised that everyone doesnt literally mean everything they say.
So the reason people get snippy is that they think you know what they meant but are nitpicking to be disruptive, since everyone should have understood what was meant, to their minds.
Context is king.
I’m not sure there’s enough context to know what the answer they were looking for is. Subordinate maybe?
Becides, dominant and submissive are valid in more contexts than sexual relations.
Seems the best, most accurate general answer really.
My guess is ‘recessive’, in the context of dominant and recessive genes. The only time I can remember ‘dominant’ from when I took biology.
That’s probably what they were looking for.
In that context, I might argue the actual opposite would be non-coding DNA. As both dominant and recessive are still functional DNA, they’re not so much opposites as they are alternatives.
But I’ve made those kinds of arguments in school enough, to know the teacher still probably wouldn’t accept my debating semantics. Even if they admit I’m right.
Yeah i did that a fair bit in school until i realised that everyone doesnt literally mean everything they say.
So the reason people get snippy is that they think you know what they meant but are nitpicking to be disruptive, since everyone should have understood what was meant, to their minds.
In the context of biology class I’m confident they wanted ‘recessive’.