The physical world around us behaves as it does partly because it’s made of a huge number of tiny molecules, each behaving randomly. in the 1800’s, the scottish physicist james clerk maxwell imagined that seemingly non-random things would happen on a random basis in our real world. the fastest-moving molecules would occasionally all find themselves in one part of a water glass and begin to boil, while the slower ones, left to themselves for a bit, would freeze elsewhere in the glass. or, at some point, all the molecules in a room would randomly be moving in just one direction, rather than every which way. the term associated with such weird hypothetical scenarios is “maxwell’s demon.” explain why you think we don’t see weird things like this happen, on a random basis in real life. imagine this randomly weird world for a minute. describe something that would make it very difficult (or at least interesting) to live in a “maxwell’s demon” world.

step-by-step explanation:

whole numbers, zero or greater

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.