HotPinkGirl
  • HotPinkGirl
A scientist studying the effects of gamma rays on marigolds gathered the data shown below. Hypothesis: Marigolds exposed to higher levels of radiation will not grow as well as marigolds that are exposed to less radiation.
Biology
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
HotPinkGirl
  • HotPinkGirl
Plant A: Gamma Rays (Rad/day) is 5. Water (mL/week) 50. Sunlight (hours/day) 0. Height (cm) 4. Plant B: Gamma Rays (Rad/day) is 10. Water (mL/week) 50. Sunlight (hours/day) 2. Height (cm) 7. Plant C: Gamma Rays (Rad/day) is 15. Water (mL/week) 50. Sunlight (hours/day) 5. Height (cm) 10. The scientist came to the conclusion that the hypothesis was incorrect. Why is the scientist's conclusion flawed? A. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the height of the plants changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. B. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of gamma rays changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. C. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the number of hours of sunlight changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. D. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of water was not changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
HotPinkGirl
  • HotPinkGirl
@geny55 @Crissy15 @Jaynator495 @jordanloveangel
jordanloveangel
  • jordanloveangel
The scientist came to the conclusion that the hypothesis was incorrect. Why is the scientist's conclusion flawed? A. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the height of the plants changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. B. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of gamma rays changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. C. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the number of hours of sunlight changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. D. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of water was not changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled. Is C I'm thinking

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

HotPinkGirl
  • HotPinkGirl
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1442262047
HotPinkGirl
  • HotPinkGirl
it was c thanks

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.