(I'm posting this as something useful that may help you organize your answers better on the essay questions.  It was a
response to a question that several of you had sent me.)

If you read my notes on your answers, you'll see that what I'm looking for is typically a brief but relevant description of a theory (by relevant I mean what it says that's different from other theories), then an experiment and what it found, and why it supports or goes against the theory.  What some people do, which I think is a good idea, is number each experiment into 2 parts:  (a) what it found, and (b) why that finding supports or contradicts the theory.

So, for example:

(theory)  Hull says learning requires a physical R followed closely by a RF which is drive reduction; the association gradually strengthens and involves specific muscle movements.

sample experiments:

1.a. Garcia's group found long-delay learning
   b.  this contradicts Hull's claim you need temporal contiguity

2.a.  Tolman & Honzik found rats learned a maze even though they hadn't been RFed (latent learning)
   b.  this contradicts Hull's claim you need a RF

3.a  Sheffield's group found male rats learn a maze to a female in heat, even though they're separated prior to ejaculation
   b.  this contradicts Hull's claim that RF has to be drive reduction

4.a.  Menzel found that a chimp learned hiding places by watching where food was hidden
   b.  this contradicts Hull's claim you first have to make an R before you can learn

5.a.  Macfarlane found rats who ran to a goal box will later swim to it if the maze is flooded
   b.  this contradicts Hull's claim that specific muscle movements are acquired

6.a.  Timberlake and Allison found non-deprived rats don't change their responses
   b.  this supports Hull's notion that there has to be a drive in order for excitation to occur

7.a.  Voeks found evidence of all-or-none learning.
   b.  this contradicts Hull's claim of incremental or gradual learning

8.a.  Grice found evidence of weaker responding when the RF was delayed.
   b.  this supports Hull's claim that you need temporal contiguity

9.a.  Miller & Kessen found that tube-fed rats showed weaker responding that regular-fed rats
   b.  this contradict's Hull's claim of drive reduction, since both groups should have had the exact same reduction

See what I did?  I broke his theory down into essential claims, and then found experiments relevant to those, laid out what the experiment found, and then showed I knew how and why it was relevant.

One more very important point!  If I had asked about Hull's theory of EXTINCTION, you would have had to use extinction experiments!  So, for example, Hull's extinction theory says you have to make a response for reactive inhibition to occur, which leads to extinction.  Giving me Menzel's study here (Point 4 above) would not be relevant, because that study doesn't look at whether a response is needed for extinction!