To determine whether something is solid all or inside of a we must look at the anions which are the at the back of the compound. in addition we will also have to look at the cactions which are the charges at the front of the compound

Negative; positive

Explanation:

Whenever we have an ionic substance, by convention, we firstly write a symbol of a metal we have. Metals tend to lose their electrons to make ionic compounds and become positively charged species, also known as cations.

Similarly, the metal cation in an ionic substance is followed by a nonmetal. Nonmetal atoms tend to gain the electrons lost by the metals in order to become negatively charged species, also known as anions.

That said, at the front of the compound we have a cation with the positive charge and at the back of the compound we have an anion with the negative charge.

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.