Which of the following best describes pseudoscience?
O
A. Explanations that do not have experimental support
O
B. Conclusions that are supported by empirical evidence
O
C. Conclusions based on scientific consensus
O
D. Scientific claims supported by a collection of experiments

the overall balanced equation

6co2 + 6h2o > c6h12o6 + 6o2

sunlight energy

where: co2 = carbon dioxide

h2o = water

light energy is required

c6h12o6 = glucose

o2 = oxygen

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."

idk lol use google m8

before, trains worked using the steam engine. thus, it uses heat so it is crucial to apply heat balance. the steam engine absorbs energy during the stage of boiling water. so, this is the endothermic reaction. when the steam is used to work the piston, it has to release this energy through running the train. the excess energy is released as an exhaust to the chimney. this is the exothermic process because it releases energy to the surroundings.