In a recent grand prix, the winner completed the race with an average speed of 229.8 km/h. what was his speed in miles per hour, meters per second, and feet per second?

Q1)
speed is the rate of change of distance 
the speed is given in km/h
we have to convert to miles/hour
the conversion factor from km to miles is 
1 km = 0.621 miles
since time is hours in both miles/hr and km/hr we need to only convert distance 
229.8 km/h x 0.621 miles/km = 142.7 miles/hr

q2)
next we have to convert km/h into m/s
then we have to convert both distance units and time units
1 km = 1000 m
1 hour = 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds
1 hour is equivalent to 3600 seconds 
within 3600 seconds distance travelled is - 229.8 km
that means within 3600 seconds distance is - 229.8 km x 1000 m/km = 229 800 m

then distance travelled in 1 second - 229 800 m / 3600 s = 63.83 m/s
answer is 63.83 m/s

q3)
we have to then convert to feet per second
again distance units and time units are both different
1 km = 3280.8 feet
1 hour = 3600 seconds
within 1 hour or 3600 s the distance travelled in feet = 229.8 km x 3280.8 feet/km = 753 927.8 feet
then distance travelled in 1 second = 753 927.8 feet/ 3600 s = 209.4 feet/s
answer is 209.4 feet/s

Answer: abeexplanation:

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.

Ithink is a because if say increased in electronegativity