Why doesn’t science offer conclusive proof of phenomena?

Science doesn't offer conclusive proof phenomena because evidence could be gathered in the future that contradicts original theories. Science is a continuous learning and discovering and what might be discovered now might change or improve in the future. Hope this answer helps.

first let us lay out the formula for potential

and kinetic energy:

pe = mgh

ke = (mv^2)/2

where: m=mass, v=velocity, g=gravitational

acceleration, h=height

calculating for mass using the known values of

pe:

340j = m (9.81 m/s^2) (50ft) (1m/3.28ft)

m = 2.27 kg

the law of conservation of energy states that

energy is neither created nor destroyed. therefore, the change in kinetic

energy from 50 ft to 35 ft would be equal to the change in potential energy

from 50 ft to 35 ft. however it would be opposite in signs since one is losing

while other is gaining.

ke(35ft) – ke(50ft) = - [ pe(35ft) – pe(50ft]

ke(50ft) = 0 since the brick is initially at rest

ke(35ft) = 340j - 2.27kg (9.81 m/s^2) (35ft)

(1m/3.28 ft)

ke(35ft)

= 102.38 j

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.