Excited about the fungus chemical's promise for treating cancer, you write up your experimental results and send the paper to a prestigious scientific journal, hoping it will be published. the journal sends your paper out to several scientists for evaluation--a process known as peer review. the reviewers identify several issues with the experimental design and data presented in your paper. which of the following criticisms are valid issues of concern that peer reviewers might identify?
a) the effect may not be real because we don’t know if the results are reproducible.
b) cell samples were taken from too few patients.
c) the experiment should have been run for more days in order to make the effect of the fungus chemical clearer.
d) there was no control in the experiment.
e) the treatment kills cancer cells, but it might simply be a poison that kills all cells—even normal cells.

The correct answer is option A, B, and E.

Explanation:

The peer review can only be made only on the basis of the results that are published in the journal for treating cancer by fungus chemicals. On the basis of the result the reviewers will have the only idea about limited things such as-

Reviewers can get an idea about if results can be reproducible or not and on the basis of that, it may possible that the effect is not real. Results can give idea about the sample size so it may possible to criticize the sample is small. The chemicals can be effective on the cells as promised but it may also possible that they might kill the normal cells too.

Thus, the correct answer is option A, B, and E.

it's c. (to reduce the greenhouse effect/carbon gasses)

answer: accepted answer: aquatic animals use the oxygen dissolved in water to carry out respiration. since the amount of dissolved oxygen in water is low as compared to the amount of oxygen in the air, therefore the rate of breathing in aquatic animals is much faster than it is in terrestrial animals.

explanation: