Answer:
I believe if she is explaining what she did and how she did it the audience will be informed of if she did controlled tests. It doesn't say if she explained the outcome.
<h2>A) is the correct option </h2>
Explanation:
Natural selection is a selection pressure which operates in a population and allow the best fitted genotype to survive in changing environmental conditions and eliminate the other genotype which are not fit
- In the given example of rabbits, those that strictly eat grass will even survive after drought because plants will try to keep themselves green and there will be no production of berries and flowers hence these rabbits will shift their food source to green plants and will be favored
- But those rabbits those that strictly eat berries and flowers will not be able to survive because they were strictly dependent on berries and flowers for their food as a result they will be unfit and natural selection will be against those rabbits
Although the actual questions are missing from your ask, here's how you can tell.
If the study will be messed up (added bias) through interaction with the subjects the study should be observational. For example if a biologists wanted to study the eating habits of wild birds in the tropics, they would need to do an observational study. if they did a controlled experiment, the birds will change their eating habits based on human interaction, thus making the study invalid.
If the study requires specific measurements, close monitoring, or contact and interaction with the subjects the study should be a controlled experiment. For example, if a scientist wanted to test out a new drug, the health of patients would need to be closely monitored.
