One of the best examples would be Archaea
Answer:
ok so i think the X shape is a chromosome, that blank space in the big spot is calleed a nucleas. The arrow on the top right is a cell, the bottom right is base pair, the bottom left is dna and the top middle is called the gene.
Explanation:
Answer:
As light intensity increases (distance between lamp and plant decreases) the volume of oxygen (or the rate of bubble production) increases. This indicates that the rate of photosynthesis increases with light intensity. However, at sufficiently high levels of light intensity, the rate oxygen evolution remains constant.
Answer:
I would expect them to perform similar.
Explanation:
Studies suggest that intelligence has a genetic component and can, in part, be passed from parent to child - but not only that. There are outer components that contribute to the formation of intelligent individuals. Better nutrition and more access to education would be possible explanations for the progressive increase in intelligence test scores over time.
Homozygous twins are those that are mainly characterized by similarity between individuals. These twins are formed from the same zygote, ie after the fertilization process. Because of this characteristic, they have the same genetic heritage and are therefore considered identical.
As the homozygous twins in their classroom have the same genetic heritage and attend the same environment, we can conclude that their intelligence is influenced by the same factors. For this reason, a teacher who taught these two brothers might have expectations that they would perform similarly in the classroom.
When we perform a study, we test a specific hypothesis to see whether our hypothesis is supported by the data or not. If our hypothesis is not supported by the data, then we can argue that a specific argument (that would be important for this hypothesis) does not have a claim in scientific research.
This is more broadly meant though. Usually you need to perform multiple studies and test multiple hypothesis to be able to critique a scientific argument and see whether the claims it makes and the predictions it makes hold up in scientific research.