Abiologist observes that a particular plant species is found in a forest but not in a nearby meadow. she hypothesizes that the plants could grow in the meadow but are not found there because their seeds have yet to land in the meadow. which of the following would be the most appropriate way to scientifically evaluate this hypothesis? a. constructing a logical argument about why her hypothesis must be trueb. measuring how far the seeds typically travel from their parent plantc. scattering seeds in several areas of the meadow and observing whether they start to growd. observing how long it takes the seeds to eventually reach the meadowe. scattering seeds in several areas of the meadow and observing whether they start to grow

e. scattering seeds in several areas of the meadow and observing whether they start to grow

Explanation:

The main factor cited in the hypothesis by the biologist influencing the growth of the plant species in the meadow is the absence of seeds as they are yet to land in the meadow. This means the growth of the plant species in the meadow is dependent on the presence of the seeds on the meadow.  

The hypothesis of the biologist is falsifiable, meaning it can be tested to be false.  

To test against this hypothesis, or evaluate the hypothesis, the seeds can be taken to several areas of the meadow to find out if they would actually grow not. If they grow, the evidence of the experiment would support the claim, but if they refuse to grow, the hypothesis is proven to  be false.  

Further observations and suggestions can then be made, whatever be the outcome of the experience, to find out what other factors could the growth of this species of plant be dependent on.

option a and d is the correct answer

i hope this u

plz mark as the brainliest answer

it cools slower in the earth meaning the crystals have more time to form than lava on the surface