Suppose that on a hot and sticky afternoon in the spring, a tornado passes over the high school. if the air pressure in the lab (volume of 180 m3) was 1.1 atm before the storm and 0.85 atm during the storm, to what volume would the laboratory try to expand in order to make up for the large pressure difference outside?

                   232.9 m³

              According to Boyle's Law, " The Volume of a given mass of gas at constant temperature is inversely proportinal to the applied Pressure". Mathmatically the initial and final states of gas are given as,

                                     P₁ V₁  =  P₂ V₂     (1)

Data Given;

                  P₁  =  1.1 atm

                  V₁  =  180 m³

                  P₂  =  0.85 atm

                  V₂  =  ?

Solving equation 1 for V₂,

                   V₂  =  P₁ V₁ / P₂

Putting values,

                   V₂  =  (1.1 atm × 180 m³) ÷ 0.85 atm

                   V₂  =  232.9 m³

            As the pressure has decreased from 1.1 atm to 0.85 atm, therefore, volume got increased from 180 m³ to 232.9 m³.

they emit helium gas that attaches to nearby planets.

they remove low-mass elements from the planets’ crust.

they cause nuclear fusion inside the inner core of planets.

they produce heavy elements such as iron and gold.

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.