Why does gold sink and wood float when they have similar volumes? Include what is happening with the mass size and arrangement of atoms explain density in your own words
gold sinks and wood floats because

Gold has a density higher than water so it sinks. Wood has a density lower than water so it floats.

Explanation:

Wood has less packed particles compared to gold. Gold had more packed molecules.

Solids are not the only substances that have density. Water and air have density that changes too. Density plays a key role in determining whether objects will sink or float in fluids and gases. Gold sinks in water because gold is denser than water, and pine floats in water because pine is less dense than water.The particles in wood are not so closely packed. There is more space in between the particles and fibres, which gives wood its low density.

Thank you and please rate me as brainliest as it will help me to level up

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.