Answer:
- <u><em>1. Observation</em></u>
- <u><em>2. Inference</em></u>
- <u><em>3. Inference</em></u>
- <u><em>4. Observation</em></u>
- <u><em>5. Inference</em></u>
Explanation:
Observing is capturing a property or a change by using the senses with or without the aid of an instrument. It does not involve judgement or reasoning.
On the other hand, an inference involves reasoning, a judgment by which a conclusion is drawn from the observations and the knowledge accumulated by the person making the inference.
<em>1. The fish’s ventral fin measured 8.5 cm long. </em>
The size of the fisht's ventral find is measured with an instrument; reasoning is not involved.
<em>2. The population of protozoans in the lake has increased since there is an increased level of carbon dioxide in the water. </em>
It is an inference because the population is measured but the reason why it increased is a conclusion or hypothesis product of analysis (reasoning). It is based on evidence, but not the evidence per se.
<em>3. The grizzly bear’s tracks were 5.5 cm deep in the mud; therefore, it weighs 410 kg:</em>
The first measure, the depth of grizzly bear's track is an observation, because it is measured, but the weight of the grizzly bear is a conclusion derived from other knowledges that require the use of our mind, may be from a correlation, or a table, or a formula, but it is not measured directly using our senses.
<em>4. The level of ozone in the atmosphere increased to 34 parts per billion after the thunderstorm.</em> (notice some typos were corrected).
<em>5. Many fish bones were found around the eagles’ nest; therefore, the eagles were eating fish. </em>
This is an inference, because it is a conclusion or hypothesis. Many fish bones were observed around the eagles'nest, but the eagles were not seen eating fish, but the observer thought (concluded) that the evidence of the fish bones supported the conclusion that the eagles were eating fish.
