Question

A scientist studying the effects of gamma rays on marigolds gathered the data shown below.

Hypothesis: Marigolds exposed to higher levels of radiation will not grow as well as marigolds that are exposed to less radiation.

Answer 1

Plant A: Gamma Rays (Rad/day) is 5. Water (mL/week) 50. Sunlight (hours/day) 0. Height (cm) 4.

Plant B: Gamma Rays (Rad/day) is 10. Water (mL/week) 50. Sunlight (hours/day) 2. Height (cm) 7.

Plant C: Gamma Rays (Rad/day) is 15. Water (mL/week) 50. Sunlight (hours/day) 5. Height (cm) 10.

The scientist came to the conclusion that the hypothesis was incorrect. Why is the scientist's conclusion flawed?

A. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the height of the plants changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
B. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of gamma rays changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
C. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the number of hours of sunlight changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
D. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of water was not changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.

Answer 2

@geny55 @Crissy15 @Jaynator495 @jordanloveangel

Answer 3

The scientist came to the conclusion that the hypothesis was incorrect. Why is the scientist's conclusion flawed?

A. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the height of the plants changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
B. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of gamma rays changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
C. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the number of hours of sunlight changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.
D. The scientist's conclusion is flawed because the amount of water was not changed and, therefore, the experiment is not controlled.


Is C I'm thinking

Answer 4

http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1442262047

Answer 5

it was c thanks