The motion of objects can be quite complex. The motion of this frog is an example. Suppose that the frog moves from one lily pad to the other in 1 second. Describe the motion of the frog as it makes one round trip between the two lily pads. Use the terms speed, velocity, displacement, and distance in your answer.

The speed of the frog is 1m per second the velocity is he can turn and jump in a different direction in 1 second the distance is 1m and there is no displacement. I'm pretty sure this is right

Explanation:

Sample answer, switch up some words.

Explanation:

The frog jumps a distance of 1 m in 1 second, so its speed is 1 m/s when it moves between lily pads. In its first jump, the velocity of the frog is 1 m/s to the left. In its jump back, the velocity of the frog is 1 m/s to the right. After one round trip, the displacement of the frog is 0 m. Therefore, the overall velocity of the frog's motion is 0 m/s.

the correct answer is option d

explanation:

i was wrong its d because they dont use cm when calculating square roots

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.