The correct option is this: VARIATIONS ARE GREATER OVER LAND THAN OVER WATER.
Temperature variation over water is very small compared to temperature variation over land. This is because, water has high specific heat capacity, which enables it to resist temperature changes when it absorb heat or when it releases heat. A large amount of heat has to be lost or gained before water will show a one degree Celsius temperature change.
There are two types of aging, primary aging and secondary aging.
Anything that cannot be controlled is called primary aging, things that can be controlled such as physical factors, are called secondary aging.
Hope it helped,
BioTeacher101
The answer is negative controls. These are groups where no phenomenon is probable. They ensure that there is no effect when there should be no effect. Where there are only two possible outcomes, e.g. positive or negative, if the treatment group and the negative control both produce a negative result, it can be concluded that the treatment had no effect. If the negative control group and the treatment group both yield a positive result, it can be inferred that a puzzling variable is involved in the occurrence under study, and the positive results are not only due to the treatment. In other examples, outcomes might be measured as lengths, times, percentages, and so forth.
The answer requires looking at the meaning of the words 'theory' and 'law'. The formal definition of a theory is that it is a comprehensive explanation of a observed phenomenon supported by a lot of evidence. Law is a fact that is bound to be true in nature, example Newton's second law. However, a theory is subjected to continuous refinements based on the several new findings that happen with time. These refinements make the theory appear incomplete. As with the theory of evolution, a lot of research work is being put to understand the complex phenomenon of genetic inheritance of traits of behaviour. Unless there are evidences from nature for all the aspects of evolution in theory, it'll remain a theory and not become a law.
Answer is A) Yes, if scientists decide that enough evidence supports the theory.
Some reasons:
→ They're cheap and common animals.
→ They can be either a source of meat, skin (leather) or milk.
→ Farmers benefit a lot with them, since what they produce are things of everyday consumption.
→ You don't need to spend much to be able to have them (mostly only with land).
Hope it helped,
BioTeacher101