Comparing Hypotheses on Plant Growth

Hard Conflicting Viewpoints Comparing Hypotheses

Researchers studied the effects of light exposure on plant growth and proposed two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 theorized that prolonged exposure to natural sunlight enhances the growth of plants compared to those grown under artificial light. Hypothesis 2 suggested that while natural light is beneficial, certain wavelengths of artificial light can be equally effective in promoting plant growth.

The researchers conducted an experiment with two groups of identical plants. Group A was exposed to natural sunlight for 12 hours daily, while Group B received 12 hours of artificial light with varied wavelengths designed to mimic sunlight. After four weeks, researchers measured the height and leaf health of the plants.

Based on these hypotheses and the conducted experiment, which statement best compares these two hypotheses?

Hypothesis 1 predicts significantly more growth compared to Group B, while Hypothesis 2 allows for the possibility that Group B could match Group A in growth.

Both hypotheses predict that natural light will outperform all forms of artificial light, making the experiment redundant.

Hypothesis 2 dismisses the effectiveness of natural light entirely, focusing solely on artificial light's wavelengths.

Hypothesis 1 is based on the premise that artificial light has no role in plant growth, while Hypothesis 2 accepts artificial light as potentially useful.

Hint

Submitted14.5K

Correct11.0K

% Correct76%