Which of the following would be a warning sign that information about a weight loss medication is not reliable science? a. the investigation compared a group that took the medication to a control group that did not take the medication. b. the scientists and all test subjects involved in the investigation work for the company that sells the medication. c. the weight loss medication worked for 95 out of the 100 test subjects, while only 15 of the 100 control subjects lost weight. d. the weight loss results were replicated by scientists conducting a study at an independent institution

I think the best option is C

Hope this helps

The correct answer is B. The scientists and all test subjects involved in the investigation work for the company that sells the medication.

Explanation:

In science, a medication, product or similar is only considered as reliable if it has been tested following the scientific method and if there are not interests that can affect the process or the result. This commonly implies, using the medication in a test group and compare the results to a control group that does not use medication, prove there was a positive effect on the test group people from the control group did not have and also  being able to replicate the study which means this can be applied with more groups and the results would be consistent. However, that scientist and test subjects work for the company that sells the medication is not a factor that contributes to reliability and indeed is a warning sign because due to their interest in selling the medication they can alter or influence testing to sell the medication and therefore this is not reliable.

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.

a rain shadow is a dry region of land on the side that is protected against the prevailing winds of a mountain range. the prevailing winds are the winds that occur most of the time in a particular place of the earth

prevailing winds carry air toward the mountain range. as the air rises up over a mountain range, the air cools, water vapor condenses, and clouds form. on this side of the mountains, called the windward side, precipitation falls in the form of  rain  or snow. this dry air produces a  rain shadow.