The initial rates for the following two elimination reactions were measured under different concentrations of the electrophiles and bases (H2O in the top reaction, KOCH2CH3 in the bottom reaction; all data is presented in the two tables. For each reaction, top and bottom, does the data suggest an E1 or E2 reaction pathway (rates are all 10-x units)? Explain. Write the rate equations for each reaction.

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.

може ли да зареждате повече информация, моля

on passing the small ampere of electric current through the tube made of ar and hg of cfl generates uv rays which excites the fluorescent and thus emits the high radiation by consumption of just 5- 12 w in comparison to incandescent light which requires more power such as around 40 - 55 w to lighten.

moreover the life span of fluorescent or cfl is around 8000 h whereas the life span of incandescent is around 1200 h

hence, the building installed with incandescent lights bears more electricity bill.