How does the energy of the atoms in a hot cup of coffee compare to the energy of the atoms in a piece of ice? The atoms in the cup of coffee have more energy.

The atoms in the cup of coffee have less energy.

The atoms in the cup of coffee have the same amount of energy.

The atoms in the cup of coffee have more energy.

Explanation:

The difference between the hot cup of coffee and the piece of ice is their temperature. The hot cup of coffee has a higher temperature than the ice.

The relationship between the energy and temperature is a direct relationship. This means that higher temperature means higher kinetic energy and vice versa.

Since the hot cup of coffee has  a higher temperature, it means it also have the highest amount of energy. The correct option is;

The atoms in the cup of coffee have more energy.

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.