Once the investigator has developed a testable hypothesis and a way to test that hypothesis, he or she can clearly state the predicted outcome that will either support or falsify the hypothesis. The prediction is always based on the particular experiment designed to test a specific hypothesis. Predictions are written in the form of if/then statements: "If the hypothesis is true, then the results of the experiment will be ..."; for example, "If extracts of marigold and rosemary are more effective than DEET in repelling insects, then there will be fewer bites on the arm sprayed with the plant extract compared to the arm sprayed with DEET after a 5-minute exposure to mosquitoes."

Making a prediction provides a critical analysis of the experimental design. If the predictions are not clear, the procedure can be modified before beginning the experiment.

For the butterfly experiment, the hypothesis was: "Infected monarch butterflies preferentially lay their eggs on plants that reduce parasite infection in their offspring."

What should the prediction be? State your prediction.

To evaluate the results of the experiment, the investigator always returns to the prediction. If the results match the prediction, then the hypothesis is supported. If the results do not match the prediction, then the hypothesis is falsified. Either way, the scientist has increased knowledge of the process being studied. Many times the falsification of a hypothesis can provide more information than confirmation, as the ideas and data must be critically evaluated in light of new information.

In the butterfly experiment, the scientist may learn that the prediction is supported—there is a greater proportion of eggs on the milkweed plant with higher levels of antiparasite chemicals (A. curassavica). As a next step, the investigator may wish to examine the longevity of infected monarchs reared on A. curassavica compared with those reared on A. incarnata.

Return to page 4 and review your hypotheses for the numbered questions. Consider how you might design an experiment to test the first hypothesis. For example, you might separate a litter of kittens into two groups and raise them in two environments—one with human dander present and another where the air is filtered, removing human dander. The prediction might be: "If human dander causes allergic reactions in cats (a restatement of the hypothesis), then the cats raised in the environment with human dander will develop more allergies than those cats reared in a dander-free environment" (predicting the results of the experiment).

Now consider an experiment you might design to test the second hypothesis. How will you measure "acne outbreak"? State a prediction for this hypothesis and experiment. Use the if/then format.

The actual test of the prediction is one of the great moments in research. No matter the results, the scientist is not just following a procedure but truly testing a creative explanation derived from an interesting question.

From this exercise, list the essential components of scientific investigations from asking a question to carrying out an experiment.

Question

16-09-2024
Biology

High School

Once the investigator has developed a testable hypothesis and a way to test that hypothesis, he or she can clearly state the predicted outcome that will either support or falsify the hypothesis. The prediction is always based on the particular experiment designed to test a specific hypothesis. Predictions are written in the form of if/then statements: "If the hypothesis is true, then the results of the experiment will be ..."; for example, "If extracts of marigold and rosemary are more effective than DEET in repelling insects, then there will be fewer bites on the arm sprayed with the plant extract compared to the arm sprayed with DEET after a 5-minute exposure to mosquitoes."

Making a prediction provides a critical analysis of the experimental design. If the predictions are not clear, the procedure can be modified before beginning the experiment.

For the butterfly experiment, the hypothesis was: "Infected monarch butterflies preferentially lay their eggs on plants that reduce parasite infection in their offspring."

What should the prediction be? State your prediction.

To evaluate the results of the experiment, the investigator always returns to the prediction. If the results match the prediction, then the hypothesis is supported. If the results do not match the prediction, then the hypothesis is falsified. Either way, the scientist has increased knowledge of the process being studied. Many times the falsification of a hypothesis can provide more information than confirmation, as the ideas and data must be critically evaluated in light of new information.

In the butterfly experiment, the scientist may learn that the prediction is supported—there is a greater proportion of eggs on the milkweed plant with higher levels of antiparasite chemicals (A. curassavica). As a next step, the investigator may wish to examine the longevity of infected monarchs reared on A. curassavica compared with those reared on A. incarnata.

Return to page 4 and review your hypotheses for the numbered questions. Consider how you might design an experiment to test the first hypothesis. For example, you might separate a litter of kittens into two groups and raise them in two environments—one with human dander present and another where the air is filtered, removing human dander. The prediction might be: "If human dander causes allergic reactions in cats (a restatement of the hypothesis), then the cats raised in the environment with human dander will develop more allergies than those cats reared in a dander-free environment" (predicting the results of the experiment).

Now consider an experiment you might design to test the second hypothesis. How will you measure "acne outbreak"? State a prediction for this hypothesis and experiment. Use the if/then format.

The actual test of the prediction is one of the great moments in research. No matter the results, the scientist is not just following a procedure but truly testing a creative explanation derived from an interesting question.

From this exercise, list the essential components of scientific investigations from asking a question to carrying out an experiment.

Answer :

Final answer:

A prediction based on the given hypothesis about monarch butterflies would focus on observing a higher number of eggs on plants with higher anti-parasite properties, supporting the idea that infected butterflies choose egg-laying sites that help reduce parasite infection in their offspring.

Explanation:

Based on the hypothesis that "Infected monarch butterflies preferentially lay their eggs on plants that reduce parasite infection in their offspring," a proper prediction would be: "If infected monarch butterflies have a preference for laying their eggs on specific plants that can reduce parasite infection in their offspring, then we will observe a higher number of eggs on plant species with higher levels of anti-parasite compounds, such as A. curassavica, compared to plants with lower levels of these compounds, like A. incarnata." This prediction is in line with the hypothesis that certain plant species can influence the egg-laying behavior of monarch butterflies due to their anti-parasite properties. Making this prediction is a crucial step in validating the experimental design and ensuring it can accurately test the original hypothesis.

Answer :

Final answer:

Explanation:

Other Questions