A student conducted an experiment to test whether talking to plants would help them to grow faster. The student talked to one gr
oup of plants and hand watered them. The student did not talk to the other group of plants and used sprinklers. After three weeks, the plants that were spoken to showed much more growth than the plants that were not. Based on the results of this experiment, which is the best conclusion? a)Talking to plants may or may not help plants grow faster because three weeks is not enough time to tell.
B)Talking to plants may or may not help plants grow faster because the amount of water given was likely different for each group.
c)Talking to plants does not help plants grow faster because the experiment did not involve enough groups of plants to determine this.
D)Talking to plants does help plants grow faster because those plants showed more growth.
which is the best answer to pick hurry have a short amount of time on this test
The student performed the experiment to study the effect of talking to plants on the growth of plants. He wanted to study "talking as an experimental variable".
While experiment he divided the samples into control group as well as the experimental group but he mixed the other variables like watering the plants using various methods-directly or with sprinkles in different amount.
This mixing of variables will cause interference with the conclusion as one will not be able to suggest that the growth pattern in plants is the result of the talking or watering. Also, the amount of water as well as mode of providing water differed in the experimental group.
In eukariotes, cells that have a neculeus, the dna is found in the neculeus, not the cytoplasim so that is false... I dunno if that is what u were asking...
