A student rolled a toy car down a ramp and timed how long it took to reach the bottom. After one trial, the student doubled the height of the ramp and added sandpaper to its surface. The student conducted three more trials. After reviewing the data, the student concluded the height of the ramp had no effect on the speed that the car traveled.Which is the most likely reason this conclusion is flawed?
A. More trials were needed during the investigation.
B. The student misunderstood how to calculate speed
C. A control should have been added to the investigation
D. Too many variables were changed during the investigation.
Okay,
the student obviously changed too many variables during the trials
Thankyou so much for your help
No problem
The most likely reason this conclusion is flawed is because option D, too many variables were changed during the investigation.
When conducting experiments, it is important to only change one variable at a time while keeping all other variables constant. In this scenario, the student doubled the height of the ramp and also added sandpaper to its surface. By changing both the height of the ramp and the surface texture at the same time, it becomes difficult to determine whether any observed changes in the speed of the car are due to one variable or the other, or both. Consequently, the student cannot confidently conclude that the height of the ramp had no effect on the speed of the car.
To avoid this issue, the student should have followed the principle of changing one variable at a time and keeping all other factors constant. This would have involved conducting separate experiments where only the height of the ramp is changed while everything else remains the same, and another experiment where only the surface texture is altered while keeping the height constant. By analyzing the results of these separate experiments, the student would have been able to draw more accurate conclusions about the effect of each variable on the speed of the car.