Of the opening sentences that were presented here that strongly engages the reader and provides context to them would be the second one which is "We could have had a worse weekend, but it's awfully hard to beat Bigfoot and bugs."
The first and third one were just not good enough because it exposes the rest of the context to the reader and lets them have the idea of what you are talking about which usually leads to the readers not choosing to continue to read, thus taking out the reader's engagement but still provides context. The last one is better than the first and third, but it spilled the beans when it mentioned the particulars as to what made the weekend bad to worse. The answer is just right. It has the impact that would hook the reader to know more about your weekend and why is Bigfoot and bugs together in your statement. The rain wasn't mentioned which would be ideal to make the story telling take a turn to much worse which would spike up the interest of the reader.
The answer is B because it doesn't have any commas and it wouldn't make sense without it. Looks like you got it correct.
Answer:
C. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the number of hours of sunlight changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
Explanation:
A controlled experiment is an experiment used to test a single variable at a time. The variable that is being tested is called the independent variable, and it is directly manipulated by a scientist. The rest of the variables need to remain unchanged in order not to get wrong results like the scientist in the given scenario.
As the scientist is trying to see how gamma rays affect marigolds, only the gamma ray exposure is supposed to change throughout the experiment. The amount of water remained the same, but the number of hours of sunlight didn't. That's why we don't know what exactly affected the growth of marigolds - the sunlight or the gamma rays? And that's why the scientist's conclusion is flawed.
