Question

Karla lists the steps of her scientific analysis in the form of a flow chart. Which step should Karla go back to as a result of her conclusions?

1. Sees height of the same species of sea grass differs in two separte locations.
2. Wonders why the sea grass height in the two locations differs.
3. Suggests grazing by marine animals is the cause of the difference in height.
4. Concludes that another factor causes the difference in height.
5. Observes that the height of sea grass is uniform in both tanks.
6. Grows samples of sea grass in two separate aquariums-onewith marine organisms and the other without them.

Answer 1

Karla should revisit her hypothesis suggesting that grazing by marine animals causes the difference in sea grass height after concluding another factor is at play, and plan new experiments. Option 6.

Step-by-step explanation:

Given Karla's flow chart of steps in her scientific analysis regarding the variable heights of sea grass in different locations, she should go back to the step where she suggests grazing by marine animals is the cause of the difference in height if her conclusions indicate another factor is responsible.

After conducting an experiment by growing samples of sea grass in two separate aquariums, one with marine organisms and one without, and observing that the sea grass height is uniform in both conditions, Karla determines that grazing is not the primary factor. Therefore, the scientific process calls for revisiting and refining the hypothesis (step 3) before planning and conducting new experiments that integrate her latest findings.