Jack tries to place magnets on the door of his refrigerator. he observes that the magnets don’t stick. he guesses that the door of the refrigerator is made of a nonmagnetic substance. what stage of scientific investigation does his guess represent?
a.
ask questions
b.
construct a hypothesis
c.
explain the results
d.
make observations

the old alchemists made significant contributions to science even though there starting premises were off a bit. their conclusions after failure would steer them into better directions for investigation. science is no more than close observation and the initial mistakes result in rethinking and retrying experiments.

1. the question asks the most appropriate, which seems to rule out "all of the above." your choice appears to be the correct one.

2. the protocol described is good for identifying correlation, but not cause and effect. for cause/effect, you need to devise a protocol that will assign the treatment (or not) to groups that have essentially the same "demographics" with respect to all the other variables. your choice regarding control group seems appropriate. random assignment of treatment (choice d) may be appropriate also. (i think you can argue that b and d are just different descriptions of the same method.)

3. d will randomize the birds, but may not guarantee there are 10 in each group. e will do both, so seems the better choice.

comment on question 2

based on the problem statement, it seems clear that confident, attentive drivers are more likely to use daytime running lights. so, the protocol might need to be devised in such a way that the lights would be turned on or off without the driver's knowledge. (an attentive driver will figure it out.) assigning a confident, attentive driver to a group required to drive without running lights might mess with his/her confidence and attentiveness. you don't want your experiment to do that. (nor do you want the experiment to subject a driver to greater risk of accident as a consequence of driving without running lights.) experiments involving human safety are always problematic.

you did not give any options thus this is the best answer i can give to you with this little information you have given

> they are both natural and not man made

> they can be tracked and predicted by the right tools

-love shrooms

percent abundance for cu-63 can be shown as:

63 x + 65 (1-x) = 62.9296

65 - 62.9296 = 2 x

x = 1.035

thus, percent abundance for cu-63 is 1.035

percent abundance for cu-65 can be shown as:

63 x + 65 (1-x) = 64.9278

65 - 64.9278 = 2 x

x = 0.0361

thus, percent abundance for cu-63 is 0.0361

the mass spectrum of cu-63 showing the intense peak as, this isotope is found in nature more abundantly around 92.38 % in comparison to cu-65 which is found 62.58 % naturally