Trey and randall are conducting an experiment to test the effects of watering plants with deionized water compared to tap water. they take 20 plants of the same size and species, kept in the same area in front of a large window of their classroom, and water half with tap water and half with deionized water. all plants receive the same amount of water daily for three weeks. the plants watered with tap water grew an average of two inches taller. when they were finished, they reported their results in the school newspaper. would their experimental findings be considered valid scientific research? a) no, because they weren't working with a scientist. b) yes, because they have all elements of a valid experiment. c) no, because their work has not been reviewed by other scientists. d) no, because they didn't do enough research before their experiment.

No, because their work has not been reviewed by other scientists.

Explanation:

hey bro i looked it up on google the structure of the eye-spot in euglena viridie, e. ehrenbergii, and phacus pyriyorme is not as franzé haa described it. the so-called “crystal body” and “lens bodies” were not found in any of the individuals of the species examined by me. as earlier observers have stated, the eye-spot consists simply of a mass of pigment granules arranged in a single layer, and probably embedded in a protoplasmic framework, but the latter could not be seen, and its presence was only inferred from the fact that the pigment granules must be held together in some way, thd the eye-spot as a whole is capable of expansion, and that the pigment granules can be separated from each other.

hope this   and an i get brainlsiest

answer: that would be cheating

explanation: