How to find experimental design in earth and space sciences
Help Questions
ACT Science › How to find experimental design in earth and space sciences
A group of scientists wanted to investigate weather patterns in four cities across the United States. They conducted a series of experiments to look for similarities and differences among the four cities. The scientists measured wind speed and direction, amount of precipitation, and percentage of cloud cover for one week. Further explanation can be found below.
Experiment 1
Scientists measured wind speed using an anemometer at fifteen different locations around each city. Measurements were taken at each location three times a day and then averaged to get a daily wind speed for each city. This was repeated every day for one week, and the results were compiled into Table 1.
Experiment 2
Scientists set up barometers at five locations in each city. At the end of each day, the precipitation levels in the five barometers were averaged to find the average daily precipitation, and the results are compiled in Table 2.
Experiment 3
For the final experiment, scientists placed upward-facing cameras atop the ten tallest buildings in each city. The cameras took one picture per hour. The scientists then used computer software to stitch together the images from all the cameras. The resulting meta-image was then analyzed with another computer program to find the percent of the sky covered by clouds. The results can be found in Table 3.
In which experiment was the greatest number of measurements taken?
Experiment 3
Experiment 2
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 and 2
Experiment 2 and 3
Explanation
To solve this question, read the description of each experiment carefully.
In Experiment 1, measurements were taken at fifteen locations three times per day in all four cities. This results in 315 measurements each day.
In Experiment 2, measurements were taken at five barometers in each of four cities, resulting in 20 measurements per day
In Experiment 3, measurements were taken at ten locations, twenty-four times a day, in four cities. This results in 960 measurements per day, making Experiment 3 easily the winner.
A group of scientists wanted to investigate weather patterns in four cities across the United States. They conducted a series of experiments to look for similarities and differences among the four cities. The scientists measured wind speed and direction, amount of precipitation, and percentage of cloud cover for one week. Further explanation can be found below.
Experiment 1
Scientists measured wind speed using an anemometer at fifteen different locations around each city. Measurements were taken at each location three times a day and then averaged to get a daily wind speed for each city. This was repeated every day for one week, and the results were compiled into Table 1.
Experiment 2
Scientists set up barometers at five locations in each city. At the end of each day, the precipitation levels in the five barometers were averaged to find the average daily precipitation, and the results are compiled in Table 2.
Experiment 3
For the final experiment, scientists placed upward-facing cameras atop the ten tallest buildings in each city. The cameras took one picture per hour. The scientists then used computer software to stitch together the images from all the cameras. The resulting meta-image was then analyzed with another computer program to find the percent of the sky covered by clouds. The results can be found in Table 3.
In which experiment was the greatest number of measurements taken?
Experiment 3
Experiment 2
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 and 2
Experiment 2 and 3
Explanation
To solve this question, read the description of each experiment carefully.
In Experiment 1, measurements were taken at fifteen locations three times per day in all four cities. This results in 315 measurements each day.
In Experiment 2, measurements were taken at five barometers in each of four cities, resulting in 20 measurements per day
In Experiment 3, measurements were taken at ten locations, twenty-four times a day, in four cities. This results in 960 measurements per day, making Experiment 3 easily the winner.
One night there was a meteor shower and scientists in four different regions, A, B, C and D, observed and counted the number of meteors seen. The scientists noted the duration of the meteor shower and the visibility of the stars.
What is a way that the scientists could improve their method of observation?
All of these
Note the weather and the potential impact this had on their observations
Determine the light pollution in each region and how this impacts results
Note if the observations were taken by the naked eye or by an automated telescope
Note the elevation of each observation location
Explanation
The weather in a region could impact the results if it were cloudy or if it was clearly would change visibility. Knowing the weather would improve the results of this experiments validity. Using an automated telescope would prevent human error that could occur in observations made by the naked eye. Light pollution affects the visibility of the night sky. Also, noting the elevation of the locations may affect visibility of meteors. Knowing this information will inform one how the light pollution affects the results of the observation.
Scientists have long debated the origin of organic molecules on Earth. Organic molecules are those based on the atom carbon, which can form four distinct bonds in contrast to the fewer number allowed in most other non-metals. As a result of this property, carbon can give rise to the enormously complex molecular shapes necessary for life to arise.
Some scientists argue that organic matter was dissolved in water ice on comets, and brought to Earth early in its history. These comets crashed into the early Earth, and deposited carbon-based molecules in copious quantities to the Earth’s surface as their water melted.
In 2014, the first space probe landed on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Suppose that scientists find the following information from 5 distinct samples after landing on the comet. Each sample was taken at a single geographical location, but 5 meters deeper than the last. Sample 1 was taken at a depth of 1 meter below the surface.
| Sample # | Water Ice? | Concentration of Organics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | N/A |
| 2 | Yes | 1 mg/L |
| 3 | No | N/A |
| 4 | Yes | 4 mg/L |
| 5 | Yes | 10 mg/L |
These samples were compared to 5 similar samples from the surface of Mars. Scientists posited that this comparison would be meaningful because we know that life does not exist on Mars the same way that it does on Earth. Thus, they are comparing a known non-biological celestial body, Mars, with another celestial body, the comet, which may be seeding life on suitable plants.
| Sample # | Water Ice? | Concentration of Organics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | N/A |
| 2 | No | N/A |
| 3 | No | N/A |
| 4 | No | N/A |
| 5 | Yes | 1 mg/L |
Which of the following would most directly undermine the major finding of this study?
The detection equipment on the comet was contaminated with organic molecules from Earth.
The detection equipment on the comet has a higher threshold for detecting organic molecules than the one on Mars.
Another location on the comet is found to have higher concentrations of organic molecules.
Another location on Mars is found to have lower levels of organic molecules.
Explanation
The major message of the study depends on the observation that the comet has a higher concentration of organics than does Martian soil. As a result, if the detection equipment was contaminated, the measured organic molecules were actually brought to the comet from Earth.
Scientists have long debated the origin of organic molecules on Earth. Organic molecules are those based on the atom carbon, which can form four distinct bonds in contrast to the fewer number allowed in most other non-metals. As a result of this property, carbon can give rise to the enormously complex molecular shapes necessary for life to arise.
Some scientists argue that organic matter was dissolved in water ice on comets, and brought to Earth early in its history. These comets crashed into the early Earth, and deposited carbon-based molecules in copious quantities to the Earth’s surface as their water melted.
In 2014, the first space probe landed on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Suppose that scientists find the following information from 5 distinct samples after landing on the comet. Each sample was taken at a single geographical location, but 5 meters deeper than the last. Sample 1 was taken at a depth of 1 meter below the surface.
| Sample # | Water Ice? | Concentration of Organics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | N/A |
| 2 | Yes | 1 mg/L |
| 3 | No | N/A |
| 4 | Yes | 4 mg/L |
| 5 | Yes | 10 mg/L |
These samples were compared to 5 similar samples from the surface of Mars. Scientists posited that this comparison would be meaningful because we know that life does not exist on Mars the same way that it does on Earth. Thus, they are comparing a known non-biological celestial body, Mars, with another celestial body, the comet, which may be seeding life on suitable plants.
| Sample # | Water Ice? | Concentration of Organics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | N/A |
| 2 | No | N/A |
| 3 | No | N/A |
| 4 | No | N/A |
| 5 | Yes | 1 mg/L |
Which of the following would most directly undermine the major finding of this study?
The detection equipment on the comet was contaminated with organic molecules from Earth.
The detection equipment on the comet has a higher threshold for detecting organic molecules than the one on Mars.
Another location on the comet is found to have higher concentrations of organic molecules.
Another location on Mars is found to have lower levels of organic molecules.
Explanation
The major message of the study depends on the observation that the comet has a higher concentration of organics than does Martian soil. As a result, if the detection equipment was contaminated, the measured organic molecules were actually brought to the comet from Earth.
Scientist 1: This scientist asserts that drilling for oil should be performed in the ocean. Scientist 1 claims that in the ocean, the oil is at a shorter depth below the Earth’s surface than on dry land. The shorter drilling depth is more ideal for access by drills.
Scientist 2: Scientist 2 believes that drilling for oil should be performed on dry land and not underwater. This is due to the fact that water is at a higher pressure than is observed on the surface of Earth. Scientist 2 asserts that drilling at the lower pressure will be less likely to damage the equipment resulting in an unsuccessful event.
Experiment: The scientists conduct various experiments. The data that the scientists collect indicates the depth at which it is necessary to drill on land and in the ocean in order to reach. The other data that the scientist collect is on the pressure that the equipment will need to experience while drilling for oil at each location.
What is not taken into account with the information that the scientists obtain in their experiments?
All of these
Different drills can be used for land and underwater
The cost of operating on land versus underwater
The amount of oil that can be obtained at each site
The time it would take to drill to the appropriate depth at each site
Explanation
Drills are made to used on land and there are also drills that are made to be used underwater. Operating costs are a necessary requirement to determine the best location to drill at for the maximum profits. The scientist do not consider the oil that can be yielded at each site, which could change the best location to drill at. Finally, the scientist measure the depth to drill at, but there is no indication if it takes longer to drill underwater than on land or vice versa. The scientists should long into all of this information.
One night there was a meteor shower and scientists in four different regions, A, B, C and D, observed and counted the number of meteors seen. The scientists noted the duration of the meteor shower and the visibility of the stars.
What is a way that the scientists could improve their method of observation?
All of these
Note the weather and the potential impact this had on their observations
Determine the light pollution in each region and how this impacts results
Note if the observations were taken by the naked eye or by an automated telescope
Note the elevation of each observation location
Explanation
The weather in a region could impact the results if it were cloudy or if it was clearly would change visibility. Knowing the weather would improve the results of this experiments validity. Using an automated telescope would prevent human error that could occur in observations made by the naked eye. Light pollution affects the visibility of the night sky. Also, noting the elevation of the locations may affect visibility of meteors. Knowing this information will inform one how the light pollution affects the results of the observation.
Scientist 1: This scientist asserts that drilling for oil should be performed in the ocean. Scientist 1 claims that in the ocean, the oil is at a shorter depth below the Earth’s surface than on dry land. The shorter drilling depth is more ideal for access by drills.
Scientist 2: Scientist 2 believes that drilling for oil should be performed on dry land and not underwater. This is due to the fact that water is at a higher pressure than is observed on the surface of Earth. Scientist 2 asserts that drilling at the lower pressure will be less likely to damage the equipment resulting in an unsuccessful event.
Experiment: The scientists conduct various experiments. The data that the scientists collect indicates the depth at which it is necessary to drill on land and in the ocean in order to reach. The other data that the scientist collect is on the pressure that the equipment will need to experience while drilling for oil at each location.
What is not taken into account with the information that the scientists obtain in their experiments?
All of these
Different drills can be used for land and underwater
The cost of operating on land versus underwater
The amount of oil that can be obtained at each site
The time it would take to drill to the appropriate depth at each site
Explanation
Drills are made to used on land and there are also drills that are made to be used underwater. Operating costs are a necessary requirement to determine the best location to drill at for the maximum profits. The scientist do not consider the oil that can be yielded at each site, which could change the best location to drill at. Finally, the scientist measure the depth to drill at, but there is no indication if it takes longer to drill underwater than on land or vice versa. The scientists should long into all of this information.
Scientist 1: Scientist 1 claims that the best spot to find gold is near volcanic areas. This scientist claims that the high temperatures and high pressure helps to form the gold. Therefore the best area to find large quantities of gold is near volcanoes.
Scientist 2: Scientist 2 asserts that the best area to find gold is in rivers. In the rivers the gold can be free flowing and easier to see. In addition, the gold found in the rivers does not necessarily require equipment for digging. It is is found in the river due to the water carrying, rather than eroding it.
How can it be determined which scientist's site is the best to find gold?
Dig only a single hole near the volcano and only look at one river then compare the obtained data
The scientists can guess at the best location and search for gold there
Ask locals of both regions how much gold they believe can be found in each location
The scientists can ask a geologist for the best location
Cannot be determined from the given information
Explanation
The scientists should not ask the locals or a geologist, but should perform experiments themselves to obtain primary data. The scientists can perform a smaller dig site at the volcano and a smaller scale look at the rivers to determine the best location before performing a full scale digging experiment.
A group of scientists wanted to investigate weather patterns in four cities across the United States. They conducted a series of experiments to look for similarities and differences among the four cities. The scientists measured wind speed and direction, amount of precipitation, and percentage of cloud cover for one week. Further explanation can be found below.
Experiment 1
Scientists measured wind speed using an anemometer at 15 different locations around each city. Measurements were taken at each location 3 times a day and then averaged to get a daily wind speed for each city. This was repeated every day for one week and the results were compiled into table 1.
Experiment 2
Scientists set up barometers at five locations in each city. At the end of each day, the precipitation levels in the five barometers were averaged to find the average daily precipitation and the results are compiled in Table 2.
Experiment 3
For the final experiment, scientists placed upward facing cameras atop the ten tallest buildings in each city. The cameras took one picture per hour. The scientists then used computer software to stitch together the images from all the cameras. The resulting meta-image was then analyzed with another computer program to find the percent of the sky covered by clouds. The results can be found in table 3.
Which of the following is supported by the data in Experiment 3?
San Berdoo is sunnier than Kalamazoo.
Tallahassee is wetter than Madison.
Madison is sunnier than San Berdoo.
Kalamazoo is cloudier than Tallahassee.
Madison is windier than Kalamazoo.
Explanation
After reading the question carefully, we see that we need to look at Experiment 3. Eliminate any options that don't deal with cloud cover.
Then, we can see that in order of increasing cloud cover, we have: San Berdoo, Madison/Kalamazoo, and finally, Tallahassee.
Thus, the only statement we can say is supported is that San Berdoo is sunnier than Kalamazoo.