What do the models you created using the Modeling Tool show?

whats the question tho?

Explanation:

to be fair, you have to have a very high iq to understand rick and morty. the humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. there's also rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from narodnaya volya literature, for instance. the fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about life. as a consequence people who dislike rick & morty truly are idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in rick's existential catchphrase "wubba lubba dub dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to turgenev's russian epic fathers and sons. i'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as dan harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. what fools.. how i pity them.

and yes, by the way, i do have a rick & morty tattoo. and no, you cannot see it. it's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 iq points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. nothin personnel kid

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.