Aburning mtch and a bonfire may have the same temperature, yet you would not sit around a burning match on a fall evening to stay warm, why not?

There are two maind reasons: time of burning and amount of energy.

Explanation:

The most important thing is understanding that what would keep a person warm is not the temperature but the heat (energy) that is being provided.

The match would give just a little amount of heat and would burn very fast.

The bonfire, because has a way higher amount of wood, would give more heat and burn for longer.

This can be justiufied by the specific heat formula below:

Q = mcΔT

Q: heat , m: mass, c: specific heat, ΔT: temperature variation

Therefore, even if we have the same substance (wood), which will have the same value of c, and the same temperature variation, with a higher mass, more heat will be released.

1. the question asks the most appropriate, which seems to rule out "all of the above." your choice appears to be the correct one.

2. the protocol described is good for identifying correlation, but not cause and effect. for cause/effect, you need to devise a protocol that will assign the treatment (or not) to groups that have essentially the same "demographics" with respect to all the other variables. your choice regarding control group seems appropriate. random assignment of treatment (choice d) may be appropriate also. (i think you can argue that b and d are just different descriptions of the same method.)

3. d will randomize the birds, but may not guarantee there are 10 in each group. e will do both, so seems the better choice.

comment on question 2

based on the problem statement, it seems clear that confident, attentive drivers are more likely to use daytime running lights. so, the protocol might need to be devised in such a way that the lights would be turned on or off without the driver's knowledge. (an attentive driver will figure it out.) assigning a confident, attentive driver to a group required to drive without running lights might mess with his/her confidence and attentiveness. you don't want your experiment to do that. (nor do you want the experiment to subject a driver to greater risk of accident as a consequence of driving without running lights.) experiments involving human safety are always problematic.