Which statement is true with respect to standard reduction potentials? SRP values that are greater than zero always represent a reduction reaction.
SRP values that are less than zero always represent a reduction reaction.
Half-reactions with SRP values greater than zero are spontaneous.
Half-reactions with SRP values greater than zero are nonspontaneous.

C). Half-reactions with SRP values greater than zero are spontaneous.

Explanation:

SRPs or Standard Reduction Potentials are characterized as the ability of a probable distinction among the anode and cathode of a usual/standard cell. It aims to examine the capacity of chemicals to reduce themselves.

The third statement asserts a true claim regarding the SRPs(Standard Reduction Potentials) that the 'half-reactions which take place with the SRP possesses the values higher than zero and they are unconstrained.' The other statements are incorrect as they either show the estimation of SRPs more than 0 or display them as being restricted. Thus, option C is the correct answer.

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.