HELP PLEASE THE OTHER 'ANSWER' ISNT EVEN AN ANSWER!

Chemistry

1 answer:

hodyreva [135]3 years ago

4 0

Answer:

most likely that (2) the replicated experiment was performed incorrectly.

Why, u ask? u dare question me:

1- The initial experiment invalidness cannot be proven.

2- the second answer is correct

3- Different labaratories does not effect the outcome, as long as the parameter and environment of the replicated experiment is the same as when the initial experiment was conducted.

4- Already knowing the data and errors would increase the precision of the replicated experiment.

5- Change in variables should still be in the objective (or purpose) of the experiment, thus, major difference in the outcome should not happen.

happy learning!

You might be interested in

A screw has 4 threads per centimeter and a circumference of 2 centimeters. The mechanical advantage of the screw is?

sashaice [31]

The answer is 8. Hope this help!!!

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What tool do you use to measure a rectangle?

pashok25 [27]

Answer:

Ruler

Explanation:

3 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What are the 5 indicators of a chemical reaction? What are the 5 indicators of a chemical reaction? I only know 3 for sure:2) Ch

Colt1911 [192]

Temperature change, colour change, releasing gas, bubbles and change in odor

5 0

3 years ago

Atomic radius increases as you move down a group of elements.

raketka [301]

Yes, the atomic radius increases as you move down a group of elements. this is true
going down leads to valence electrons that are further away from nucleus -> less electrostatic attraction -> less pull towards nuc. -> greater radius/volume taken

3 0

2 years ago

Two scientists wrote a paper detailing their research and conclusions and submitted it to a scientific journal. Several months l

Semmy [17]

Two scientists wrote a paper detailing their research and conclusions and submitted it to a scientific journal. Several months later, they received the paper back from the publisher with many comments attached from several fellow scientists. It is either that they revise their study or replicate the study. Most scientists would revisit their work and the findings they had from their research. Most probable if they were successful and the comments of the publisher and the co-scientists were positive they could replicate the study to validate its accountability.

6 0

3 years ago