Question

a peer - reviewed study concludes rising co₂ levels harm coral reefs. a student finds a blog that disagrees but lacks citations. what reasoning best explains which source to trust? image of coral - like organisms options: trust the blog because it seems passionate; trust the peer - reviewed study because it uses data, is reviewed, and follows scientific standards; both are equally valid; the blog is more recent. a scientist collected the following data on algal growth during an experiment: which of the following conclusions could be drawn from the data? chart: algal growth rates. columns: water temperature (°c) with values 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40; time for population to double (hours) with values 69, 58, 36, 44, 52, 71, 78. partially visible options about algal growth at different temperatures.

Explanation:

First Question (Source to Trust)

In scientific research, peer - reviewed studies are more reliable as they use data, undergo review by experts, and follow scientific standards. A blog's passion is not a valid reason for trust, and recency or equal validity is incorrect as peer - reviewed work is more rigorous.

Step 1: Analyze the data pattern

We look at the "Time for population to double (hours)" column. A shorter time means faster growth (since the population doubles in less time). The times are: 10°C - 69h, 15°C - 58h, 20°C - 36h, 25°C - 44h, 30°C - 52h, 35°C - 71h, 40°C - 78h.

Step 2: Identify the minimum time

We can see that the minimum time for the population to double is 36 hours, which occurs at 20°C. So, the algae multiply the fastest (since doubling time is least) at 20°C.

Answer:

Trust the peer - reviewed study because it uses data, is reviewed, and follows scientific standards

Second Question (Algal Growth Conclusion)