Which is stronger - the attractive forces between water molecules and chromium and chloride ions, or the combined ionic bond strength of crcl2 and intermolecular forces between water molecules? explain?

vanderwaal's forces of attraction are the electrostatic intermolecular forces that exist in a molecule due to the temporary or permanent dipoles that are developed in a molecule. in , the major intermolecular forces are dipole-dipole interactions as the molecule is polar (bent structure). so the vanderwaal's forces of interaction in between molecules are the permanent dipole-dipole interactions that develop due to the dipole that exists in between the polar h - s bond. the positively charged hydrogen atom is attracted towards the negative end of the dipole that is sulfur of the adjacent molecule. therefore, these forces of attraction are relatively stronger than that of london dispersion forces that exist in non polar molecules.

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.