Attached is the table related to this exercise that I found on the internet.
According to the table, the division with the largest sample was the division II.
Summing up all the individuals from the different divisions we have:
Division I - 22
Division II - 27
Division III - 21
The sample from division II is the largest.
<span> esta a dizer que o citoplasma é um gel -como substância espessa . Ele liquefaz Quando é agitado ou agitado . Citoplasma se refere é o citoplasma , que significa substância da célula. Este nome descreve, o citoplasma é a substância de vida , o citoplasma serve como uma sopa molecular , é no citoplasma , onde todos os organelos celulares são suspensas e estão ligadas entre si por uma membrana de bicamada lipídica .</span>
Answer:
C. The differences between the observed and expected counts are too large to be attributed to chance.
Explanation:
The p-value of the statistic represents the chance that the observed count is based on luck or chance. When p value too high, the research can't be used since the chance that its not represent real condition are too high. Most researchers use 5% (0.05) as the cutoff of something called statistically significant. In this research, the p-value is 0.04 or 4%, so it is statistically significant.
None of the provided options are reasonable. <span>comparing nutrient concentrations between the photic zone and the benthic zone can not tell you whether differences in concentrations between the photic and benthic zone are due to uptake by phytoplankton or because nutrients are sinking to the sea bottom and ocean stratification is preventing mixing. The approach of c</span><span>ontrasting nutrient uptake by autotrophs at different locations under different temperatures would not provide useful information on limiting nutrients. but rather uptake rates at different temperatures. It is likely that e</span>xperimentally enriching some areas of the ocean and compare their productivity to that of untreated areas can provide an indication of limiting nutrients, but this is not advisable, as it would have to be done on a large scale, and one cannot be sure of the ecological consequences. Also, because it would not be a controlled experiment, other factors could create 'noise' in the data. The last option, <span>observe antarctic ocean productivity from year to year to see if it changes, also does not help, as there is no correlation between nutrient concentrations using this approach. The best approaches would be either the last approach, but with the additional monitoring of nutrient concentrations, or under a controlled laboratory experiment.</span>
