Acid-catalyzed dehydration of secondary and tertiary alcohols proceeds through an e1 mechanism. the first step is the protonation of the alcohol oxygen to form an oxonium ion. dehydration of 3-methyl-2-butanol forms one major and two minor organic products. draw the structures, including hydrogen atoms, of the three organic products of this reaction.

Mayor product: 2-methylbut-2-ene

Minor products: 3-methylbut-1-ene and 2-methylbut-1-ene

Explanation:

In this molecule we can have a hydride shift after the carbocation formation. When we have the carbocation in the terciary carbocation we can obtain the most subtitued alkene (2-methylbut-2-ene).

For the minor ones, we have two options. In the first one, the double bond is formed prior to the hydride shift and the double bond is formed between carbon one and the carbon two (the carbon where was placed the OH).

The second option is the formation of the double bond between the tertiary carbocation (after the hydride shift) and one of the methyl groups.

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.

the answer is c i believe