7. To hang over dangerously.
RETHATEN
​

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.

c is having 4 valence electrons and is bonded to three hydrogens and one sulphur atom, therefore, the number of bond pair is equal to four. as all the valence electrons are used in forming the bonds so, there is no lone pair left on carbon.

s is having 6 valence electrons and is bonded to one other sulfur atom and one carbon atom, therefore, the number of bond pair is equal to 2. as only two valence electrons are used in forming the bonds so, four electrons are left. therefore, two lone pairs are present on s.