Let’s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. Imagine that one morning when you wake up and flip a the switch to turn on your bedside lamp, the light won’t turn on. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the lights won’t turn on. Of course, you would next ask the question: “Why won’t the light turn on?”
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation that can be tested. A hypothesis is NOT the question you are trying to answer – it is what you think the answer to the question will be and why . Several hypotheses may be proposed as answers to one question. For example, one hypothesis about the question “Why won’t the light turn on?” is “The light won’t turn on because the bulb is burned out.” There are also other possible answers to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis is “The light won’t turn on because the lamp is unplugged” or “The light won’t turn on because the power is out.” A hypothesis should be based on credible background information. A hypothesis is NOT just a guess (not even an educated one), although it can be based on your prior experience (such as in the example where the light won’t turn on). In general, hypotheses in biology should be based on a credible, referenced source of information.
A hypothesis must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a dog thinks is not testable, because we can’t tell what a dog thinks. It should also be falsifiable, meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is “Red is a better color than blue.” There is no experiment that might show this statement to be false. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. This is important: a hypothesis can be disproven, or eliminated, but it can never be proven. If an experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, then that explanation (the hypothesis) is supported as the answer to the question. However, that doesn’t mean that later on, we won’t find a better explanation or design a better experiment that will disprove the first hypothesis and lead to a better one.
A variable is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. Typically, an experiment only tests one variable and all the other conditions in the experiment are held constant.
Let’s start with the first hypothesis given above for the light bulb experiment: the bulb is burned out. When testing this hypothesis, the independent variable (the thing that you are testing) would be changing the light bulb and the dependent variable is whether or not the light turns on.
It would be important to hold all the other aspects of the environment constant, for example not messing with the lamp cord or trying to turn the lamp on using a different light switch. If the entire house had lost power during the experiment because a car hit the power pole, that would be a confounding variable.
You may have learned that a hypothesis can be phrased as an “If..then…” statement. Simple hypotheses can be phrased that way (but they must always also include a “because”), but more complicated hypotheses may require several sentences. It is also very easy to get confused by trying to put your hypothesis into this format. Don’t worry about phrasing hypotheses as “if…then” statements – that is almost never done in experiments outside a classroom.
The results of your experiment are the data that you collect as the outcome. In the light experiment, your results are either that the light turns on or the light doesn’t turn on. Based on your results, you can make a conclusion. Your conclusion uses the results to answer your original question.
We can put the experiment with the light that won’t go in into the figure above:
In practice, the scientific method is not as rigid and structured as it might at first appear. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds. Scientific reasoning is more complex than the scientific method alone suggests.
Another important aspect of designing an experiment is the presence of one or more control groups. A control group allows you to make a comparison that is important for interpreting your results. Control groups are samples that help you to determine that differences between your experimental groups are due to your treatment rather than a different variable – they eliminate alternate explanations for your results (including experimental error and experimenter bias). They increase reliability, often through the comparison of control measurements and measurements of the experimental groups. Often, the control group is a sample that is not treated with the independent variable, but is otherwise treated the same way as your experimental sample. This type of control group is treated the same way as the experimental group except it does not get treated with the independent variable. Therefore, if the results of the experimental group differ from the control group, the difference must be due to the change of the independent, rather than some outside factor. It is common in complex experiments (such as those published in scientific journals) to have more control groups than experimental groups.
Question: Which fertilizer will produce the greatest number of tomatoes when applied to the plants?
Hypothesis : If I apply different brands of fertilizer to tomato plants, the most tomatoes will be produced from plants watered with Brand A because Brand A advertises that it produces twice as many tomatoes as other leading brands.
Experiment: Purchase 10 tomato plants of the same type from the same nursery. Pick plants that are similar in size and age. Divide the plants into two groups of 5. Apply Brand A to the first group and Brand B to the second group according to the instructions on the packages. After 10 weeks, count the number of tomatoes on each plant.
Independent Variable: Brand of fertilizer.
Dependent Variable : Number of tomatoes.
Constants: amount of water, type of soil, size of pot, amount of light, type of tomato plant, length of time plants were grown.
Confounding variables : any of the above that are not held constant, plant health, diseases present in the soil or plant before it was purchased.
Results: Tomatoes fertilized with Brand A produced an average of 20 tomatoes per plant, while tomatoes fertilized with Brand B produced an average of 10 tomatoes per plant.
You’d want to use Brand A next time you grow tomatoes, right? But what if I told you that plants grown without fertilizer produced an average of 30 tomatoes per plant! Now what will you use on your tomatoes?
Results including control group : Tomatoes which received no fertilizer produced more tomatoes than either brand of fertilizer.
Conclusion: Although Brand A fertilizer produced more tomatoes than Brand B, neither fertilizer should be used because plants grown without fertilizer produced the most tomatoes!
Text adapted from: OpenStax , Biology. OpenStax CNX. May 27, 2016 http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:RD6ERYiU@5/The-Process-of-Science .
Mt Hood Community College Biology 102 Copyright © 2016 by Lisa Bartee and Christine Anderson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Comments are closed.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Durga prasanna misra.
1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
George d. kitas.
5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).
Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2
Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4
Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5
Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.
Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8
In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.
A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.
Points to be considered while evaluating the validity of hypotheses |
---|
Backed by evidence-based data |
Testable by relevant study designs |
Supported by preliminary (pilot) studies |
Testable by ethical studies |
Maintaining a balance between scientific temper and controversy |
A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7
Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.
If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.
The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.
Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18
Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20
Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1
The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36
Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39
Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44
Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.
Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.
Points to be considered before a hypothesis is acceptable for publication |
---|
Experiments required to test hypotheses should be ethically acceptable as per the World Medical Association declaration on ethics and related statements |
Pilot studies support hypotheses |
Single clinical observations and expert opinion surveys may support hypotheses |
Testing hypotheses requires robust methodology and statistical power |
Hypotheses that challenge established views and concepts require proper evidence-based justification |
Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.
Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author Contributions:
A Scientific hypothesis must be testable, for a hypothesis to be testable means that it is possible to make observations that agree or disagree with it. This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. That's because it can't be tested.
Explanation:
When copper metal is heated to 1100 oC it melts. Is this a chemical or physical change? Explain your answer
it is a physical change
Identify whather the following are elements, compounds and mixture. 1. rusting of iron. 2. zinc. 3. commkn salt. 4. gold. 5. smoke. 6. water.
Calculate the following using the correct significant digits: 12.354 + 17.5?
.354+.5= 854
How many orbital shells does period 4 contain?
it contains 30 orbitals
In Rutherford's experiment, when particles strike the zinc sulfide screen, they produce flashes of light or scintillations which can be detected. A-Gamma b -Meson C-Beta d Alpha
Answer: D- Alpha
How many valence electrons does the element with the following electron configuration have? 1s22s22p63s23p64s23d104p4
please refer to the attached file (English)
s'il vous plaît se référer au fichier ci-joint cher compagnon (French)
The number of valance electron is 6
Valence electrons are the electrons found in the outermost shell of an atom.
The given atom has the following electronic configuration ;
1s²2s²2p⁶3s²3p⁶4s²3d¹⁰4p⁴
The number of valence electron in a given electronic configuration is determine as follows;
The number of valance electron is found in this sub-orbitals = 4s², 4p⁴
The number of valance electron = 2 + 4 = 6
Thus, the number of valance electron is 6
Learn more here:https://brainly.com/question/12093318
Density = 2 g/ml Volume = 20 ml What is the mass?
The mass of a substance when given the density and volume can be found by using the formula
From the question
volume = 20 mL
density = 2 g/mL
The mass is
mass = 20 × 2
We have the final answer as
Hope this helps you
The number behind the x is always
being multiplied by x
I think,...
hope this helps :)
Who can describe for me the process obtaining oil from groundnuts
Your ans is here
I hope it will helpful for you
mark as brainest answer
Which is a postulate of the kinetic-molecular theory? O Gas particles have a small volume relative to the spaces between them. Gas particles have a large volume relative to the spaces between them. Gas particles are very small in size and always move slowly. O Gas particles are very large in size and always move slowly.
Gas particles have a small volume relative to the spaces between them.
i just took the quiz.
Gas particles have a small volume relative to the spaces between them is the postulate of the kinetic molecular theory .
The kinetic molecular theory describes about the behaviour of ideal gases at the particle level.
The five main postulates of the kinetic molecular theory are as follows:
1) The particles in a gas are in constant and random motion
2) The combined volume of the particles is negligible.
3) The particles exert no forces on one another.
4) The collisions between the particles are completely elastic.
5) The average kinetic energy of the particles are proportional to the temperature in kelvin.
Hence, we can conclude that option 1 is the answer.
To learn more about kinetic molecular theory here
https://brainly.com/question/10725862
Which of the following energy forms is associated with an object due to its position? Group of answer choices positional energy potential energy total energy kinetic energy
Potential Energy
If an object is suspended on a high level, it has high gravitational potential energy because it may fall at any moment
Someone plz help me out ASAP
Fluorine has 9 protons and 9 electrons
Iodine has 53 protons and 53 electrons
An electron has a mass
Which structures perform similar functions in plant and animal cells? 1. Mitochondria, nucleus, cell membrane 2. Vacuole, chloroplast, cell wall 3. Cell membrane, cell wall, nucleus 4. Ribosome, cell membrane, chloroplast (Please answer for brainliest and a heart, thank you!)
Sorry if Im wrong
ANALYZE Define a system you interact with every day. Is the system open, closed, or isolated? How do matter and energy flow into, out of, or within the system?
A system that we use daily or almost every day is, for example, when boiling water for cooking.
This is the case of an open system.
Boiling water in a pot without a lid, exchanges heat energy and mixes with its surroundings when it enters a gaseous state.
The energy introduced into the system by the fire transforms the water into gas, which is released back into the environment . Without that constant heat injection, the water will stop boiling; and without room to get out, the steam ( matter ) will increase the pressure until the pot burst .
You can find examples like these anywhere, knowing the definition of each system:
The electronic configuration of phosphorous is 2.8.5. Explain, in terms of its electronic configuration, why phosphorus is in group 5 of the periodic table. PLEASE HELP I WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST
phosphorus belongs to group 5 of the periodic table because it has 5 electron in its outermost shell the number of electron in the outermost shell of electron determine the group of the element in the periodic table
In fact the group number of phosphorous by the modern laws of periodic table is 15 which is 10 added with the number of its valence electrons.
Every elements are classified into different periods and groups in periodic table . The horizontal rows in periodic table are called periods and the vertical columns are the groups.
From left to right in a period the atomic number for each element increases by one. A group contains elements with same number of valence electrons and similar chemical and physical properties .
There are 18 groups in periodic table . Elements with 1 and 2 valence electrons are in group and 1 and 2 respectively. From 3 valence electrons onwards, the group number is 10 added to the number of valence electron .
Phosphorous contains 5 valence electrons thus, it is classified to 15th group .
To find more on groups in periodic table, refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/13219625
HELP ASAP PLEASE 75POINTS
Answer: it's a
n atom “likes” to obtain a full outer shell. The fourth shell (in the atoms that we are studying today) can hold a maximum of 8 electrons. Think: Energetically, would the atom above “prefer” to give away its valence electrons or borrow some from another atom in order to fill its outer shell? Explain your reasoning
It depends on how many electrons are already in the outer shell.
If it is a large amount (if it is almost to the maximum), then it will want to borrow from another atom.
But if it is close to empty then it will want to give away so it will go back to the inner ring with will be full.
Hope this helps, good luck!
what does 2 in the chemical formula CaCl2 mean?
The answer is
Calcium chloride is created from the ionic bonds that form between calcium cations and chloride anions. Calcium ions have a charge of +2, while chloride ions have a charge of -1. Calcium chloride salts can also form crystals based on these same ionic properties.
Hope this helps.
Please mark my answer as brainliest?
6. Suppose you are going to measure the length of a pencil in centimeters. What should you do to get the most accurate measurement? If you give the ruler to three different friends, what should they do to achieve good precision?
Their answers must be in two decimal places
All of them should view the scale from the front to avoid parallax error and the scale should be kept corresponding to the end of the pencil to accurately measure its length.
Because your eye is angled toward the measuring marks, parallax error happens when the length of an object is measured as being longer or shorter than it actually is. For instance, someone looking at a car's speedometer from the driver's seat will see it clearly and receive an accurate reading.
Due to the angle formed by his eye, the speedometer , and the arrow, a person observing the speedometer from the passenger seat will overestimate the reading.
On a ruler or other similar instrument, position your line of sight such that it is immediately above the measurement marking, creating an imagined vertical line between your eye, the marking, and the item. The main reason for parallax error is when you see an item in relation to the scale from an angle that causes it to appear to be at a different location on the scale.
Therefore, they should view the scale from the front to avoid parallax error and the scale should be kept corresponding to the end of the pencil to accurately measure its length.
Read more about parallax error, here
https://brainly.com/question/17057769
Convert 3.00 x 10^5 km/sec to miles/hr. (1 mile = 1.609 km)
[tex]3\times 10^5\ \dfrac{km}{s}=6.71\times 10^8\ \text{miles per hour}[/tex]
In this problem, we need to convert [tex]3\times 10^5\ km/s[/tex] to miles per hour
We know that,
1 mile = 1.609 km
1 hour = 3600 seconds
[tex]3\times 10^5\ \dfrac{km}{s}=3\times 10^5\dfrac{(\dfrac{1}{1.609}\ \text{miles})}{\dfrac{1}{3600}\ \text{hour}}\\\\=6.71\times 10^8\ \text{miles per hour}[/tex]
Hence, [tex]3\times 10^5\ \dfrac{km}{s}=6.71\times 10^8\ \text{miles per hour}[/tex]
valid experiment for does water and oil mix
Answer: Water and oil cannot mix
8. Develop a relationship in the form of a single sentence or equation) that can predict the charge based on the number and types of particle.
Charge of an ionic element = Number of protons (p) - Number of electrons (e)
Atoms of elements are made up of three subatomic particles viz: neutron, proton and electron. The proton is the subatomic particle that carries the positive charge (+) while the electron is the subatomic particle that carries the negative charge (-).
The atom of any element is NEUTRAL when the number of protons in its nucleus is equal to the number of electrons surrounding its nucleus. However, an ion (charged atom) arises when there is a difference in the number of protons and electrons in an atom.
The equation to determine the charge an ion will carry is: NUMBER OF PROTONS (p) - NUMBER OF ELECTRONS (e).
This equation shows that an ion will be:
- positively charged if the number of protons is > number of electrons.
- negatively charged if the number of protons is < number of electrons.
I need help please.
Please select all thats apply.. A gas _____. 1.has a fixed volume 2.has a fixed shape 3.is difficult to compress 4.takes the shape of its container 5. has molecules with a lot of kinetic energy
They have a lot of kentic energy as they move around
What is the definition Reactivity
Answer: the state or power of being reactive or the degree to which a thing is reactive.
What is the temperature of 0.500 moles of helium that occupies a volume of 15.0 L at a pressure of 1.6 atm?
= 1.6atm* 15.0L/ 0.5mol*0.0821LatmK^-1mol^-1
The ancient philosophers discussed the world around them but did not do any experiments or detailed observations. TRUE FALSE
0.000786 written in scientific notation is?
Students at Allendale High School were tardy most often for fourth hour, right after lunch. Therefore, the administration decided to close campus for lunch. As a result, the number of students tardy for fourth hour drastically decreased. When questioned, the principal could say that open campus lunch was a contributing factor to student tardiness Please select the best answer from the choices provided T F
There are different ways to know if a statement is true. When questioned , the principal could say that open campus lunch was a contributing factor to student tardiness is true statement.
A statement is true if what it stand in gap for the case, Example is The buses are always early ” is only true if what it describes is the case. That is, if it is actually the case that the buses are often early.
Learn more about Statement from
https://brainly.com/question/25046487
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
report flag outlined. A hypothesis is testable because it is a person's theory or educated guess about what is going to happen in a certain situation. You have limited evidence to prove your hypothesis and so it makes it testable for an experiment, or until it can be proven a true hypothesis. arrow right. Explore similar answers.
To make a hypothesis testable, it needs to meet certain criteria: 1. **Specificity**: The hypothesis should clearly state the relationship between the variables being studied. It should be precise and focused to allow for testing that relationship. 2. **Falsifiability**: A testable hypothesis should be able to be proven false.
There are 5 main steps in hypothesis testing: State your research hypothesis as a null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis (H o) and (H a or H 1 ). Collect data in a way designed to test the hypothesis. Perform an appropriate statistical test. Decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis. Present the findings in your results ...
A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .
hypothesis. science. scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an "If…then" statement summarizing the idea and in the ...
Answer: B. Explanation: For a hypothesis to be testable means that it is possible to make observations If a hypothesis cannot be tested by making observations, it is not scientific.
A hypothesis must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a dog thinks is not testable, because we can't tell what a dog thinks. It should also be falsifiable, meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is "Red is a better color than blue."
Forming a Hypothesis. When conducting scientific experiments, researchers develop hypotheses to guide experimental design. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation that is both testable and falsifiable. You must be able to test your hypothesis, and it must be possible to prove your hypothesis true or false.
Hypothesis: The height that my tomato plants reach is positively correlated to the amount of sunlight they are exposed to (e.g., the more sun the plant gets, the taller it will be). This hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. So, the next summer you decide to test your hypothesis. This hypothesis also allows you to make a prediction.
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs. Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate ...
A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method.
A testable hypothesis in science means that it can be tested through experimentation or observation to determine if it is true or false. This is an essential aspect of the scientific method, which aims to gather empirical evidence to support or reject hypotheses.
What is a testable hypothesis? A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurance that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. the basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. Click here 👆 to get an answer to your question ️ what is a testable hypothesis?
Omar wrote a hypothesis about batteries called dry cells. If more dry cells are connected end to end, a light bulb will work longer because there is more energy available. What are the variables in his hypothesis? The independent variable is the number of dry cells, and the dependent variable is the length of time the bulb works.
A testable hypothesis is one that can be investigated via experiment or observation, generating measurable, empirical data. For example, 'If I water my garden plants with a sugar-water solution, then they will grow taller than if I water them with water alone'. Here, you are predicting a possible outcome and this hypothesis is testable because ...
A Scientific hypothesis must be testable, for a hypothesis to be testable means that it is possible to make observations that agree or disagree with it. This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. That's because it can't be tested. Explanation:
This makes the hypothesis subject to falsification, which is a core principle of the scientific method. In contrast, option B (the hypothesis is proven wrong) is not a definition of being testable - it simply states a possible outcome of testing a hypothesis. Option C (the opposite of the hypothesis is tested) does not accurately define the ...
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that can either be proved as false or correct. A hypothesis must be testable means their must be an authenticity to prove the validity of a hypothesis. A hypothesis is tested with the help of experiments. An experiment should produce the same results again and again if a hypothesis is considered to be ...
Answer. profile. Brainly User. report flag outlined. It is feasible to make observations that agree or disagree with a theory if it is testable. A theory is not scientific if it cannot be tested by observation. arrow right. Explore similar answers. messages.
Being testable means that. Answer: A Scientific Hypothesis Must Be Testable. For a hypothesis to be testable means that it is possible to make observations that agree or disagree with it. If a hypothesis cannot be tested by making observations, it is not scientific. Answer: hope it helps please mark as the brainliest.
Why should hypotheses. be testable? Answer: A Scientific Hypothesis Must Be Testable. For a hypothesis to be testable means that it is possible to make observations that agree or disagree with it. If a hypothesis cannot be tested by making observations, it is not scientific. Explanation: For a hypothesis to be testable means that it is possible ...