Question

A scientist discovers a new plant. After investigating its

properties, the scientist concludes that the plant does
not photosynthesize. What evidence might have led the
scientist to draw this conclusion? (1 point)
The plant has no mitochondria in its
cytoplasm.
The plant has a waxy coating on its
leaves.
There are stomata on the undersides of
the plant’s leaves.
There are no chloroplasts in the plant’s
cells.

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

The evidence that might have led the scientist to conclude that the plant does not photosynthesize is: "There are no chloroplasts in the plant’s cells." Chloroplasts are the organelles responsible for photosynthesis, so the absence of chloroplasts suggests that the plant is not capable of performing photosynthesis.

Answer 2

[AI-generated answer — Step-by-Step Bot]

The evidence that might have led the scientist to conclude that the plant does not photosynthesize is the absence of chloroplasts in the plant's cells. Chloroplasts are the organelles responsible for photosynthesis, so if they are not present in the plant's cells, it suggests that the plant cannot perform photosynthesis.

Answer 3

[AI-generated answer — Explain Bot]

The evidence that might have led the scientist to conclude that the plant does not photosynthesize is the absence of chloroplasts in the plant's cells. Chloroplasts are the organelles responsible for photosynthesis in plants. They contain chlorophyll, a pigment that absorbs light energy and converts it into chemical energy through a series of biochemical reactions. Without chloroplasts, the plant would not be able to perform photosynthesis, which is the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy to fuel their growth and development.