Alice Larsen wanted to see if a new premium gasoline would give her more kilometers to the liter. She filled her car with the new gas and went on a long trip. When she figured her mileage, she discovered that she has gone 40 Km farther on this tank of gas then she went on a tanks of regular gas when she was driving around town as usual. She decided to buy the premium gas for then on to get better mileage. What is incorrect in this experiment?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario presents a detective-like look at a simple experiment comparing mileage between premium and regular gasoline. Each option requires evaluating potential experimental design flaws.

Option a: Not enough subjects. This choice questions sample size. In this particular case, the scenario describes a single car and a single trial (one tank with premium, one with regular). While a small sample size is a valid concern in experiments, the key issue here is not the quantity of subjects or data points but whether the comparison was conducted under equivalent conditions. A single trial may not capture variability due to driving conditions, weather, or fuel efficiency fluctuations. Therefore, this option points to a potential limitation, but it does not address the fundamental flaw highlighted by the description of the test conditions.

Option b: Conditions were not kept the same. This is about controlling variables and ensuring a fair comparison. In the story, the premium gas test occurred during a long trip, while the regular-gas comparison happened during urban driving around town. Driving conditions (speed, terrain, air resistance, traffic) and usage patterns can dramatically affect fuel economy. Because the two measurements come from different contexts, you cannot attribute the change in mileage solely to the fuel type. This option identifies the core experimental design flaw: lack of consistent, controlled conditions between the two tests.

Option c: The experiment was not reproduced. Reproducibility means others (or the same researcher) could repeat the procedure with similar results. While replication is important in science, the prompt describes a single comparison rather than a failure to reproduce. The absence of replication is a methodological critique, but it is not the immediate fault demonstrated by the experiment’s setup as described.

Option d: Subjects were not similar. This implies a mismatch between test groups. In this context, the two “subjects” are the car’s performance under different gas types, but the focus is more on the environment and driving conditions rather than inherent differences between objects. The car itself is the same model, so the issue is not a difference in subjects but the non-identical testing conditions. Thus this statement misidentifies the primary problem here.

Overall, the main problem illustrated is a lack of consistent testing conditions, which confounds the effect of fuel type with other variables such as driving scenario and trip type. The other options either describe secondary concerns (sample size, replication) or mischaracterize the flaw (subject similarity).

25-1-GEST1008-001_58932 Test ONE

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

If you wanted two replicates per treatments, how many experimental units would you need? [ Select ] 8 12 27 x [ Select ] 1 2 3 = [ Select ] 12 24 36 experimental units

Question at position 11 Only two treatments should be used in an experiment.Each shrub did not receive all ten pruning methods.Pruning methods were not randomly assigned to shrubs.Each pruning method was used on only one shrub.The shrubs were not randomly selected.

More Practical Tools for International Students

Exam Browser Assistant

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler