A seismograph is usually placed on the surface of the ground to feel any vibration. True
False

So yes it True.

Explanation:

A seismometer is the internal part of the seismograph, which may be a pendulum or a mass mounted on a spring; however, it is often used synonymously with "seismograph".

Seismographs are instruments used to record the motion of the ground during an earthquake. They are installed in the ground throughout the world and operated as part of a seismographic network. The earliest "seismoscope" was invented by the Chinese philosopher Chang Heng in A.D. 132. This did not, however, record earthquakes; it only indicated that an earthquake was occurring. The first seismograph was developed in 1890.

A seismograph is securely mounted onto the surface of the earth so that when the earth shakes, the entire unit shakes with it EXCEPT for the mass on the spring, which has inertia and remains in the same place. As the seismograph shakes under the mass, the recording device on the mass records the relative motion between itself and the rest of the instrument, thus recording the ground motion. In reality, these mechanisms are no longer manual, but instead work by measuring electronic changes produced by the motion of the ground with respect to the mass.

A seismogram is the recording of the ground shaking at the specific location of the instrument. On a seismogram, the HORIZONTAL axis = time (measured in seconds) and the VERTICAL axis= ground displacement (usually measured in millimeters). When there is NO EARTHQUAKE reading, there is just a straight line except for small wiggles caused by local disturbance or "noise" and the time markers. Seismograms are digital now - there are no more paper recordings.

I hope this helps:3

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.