You are talking with your friend when all of a sudden a huge lightning storm starts. You and your friend are both amazed by the lightning show.
All of sudden you happen to witness lightning striking the ground. Your
friend says "Wow, that was amazing. We should rush outside to the spot
that the lightning just struck because "lightning never strikes the same
place twice". Now since you are taking Mr De Thomasis class, you know
that although this is a logical statement, it is not necessarily true. Please
explain to your friend why lightning can in fact strike the same place twice.
In your answer. Please include the steps needed to get lightning, as well as
Provide an explanation to correct your friend.

the only liquid elements at standard temperature and pressure are bromine (br) and mercury (hg). although, elements caesium (cs), rubidium (rb), francium (fr) and gallium (ga) become liquid at or just above room temperature.

explanation:

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.

ill try to . no promises tho.

explanation: