Want this question answered?
to make the experiment more reliable
performing the experiment multiply times.
So the experiment's results are more reliable
Peer reviewing involves other scientists testing the data that one scientist has produced and finding it either true or false. If more than the original scientist proves the hypothesis, then the answer is considered more reliable.
You have to state whether or not your hypothesis was supported by the experiment and then explain why or why not. e.g. The hypothesis, if the concentration of the hydrochloric acid is increased, the change in weight of the calcium carbonate will increase, was supported by the experiment that was conducted. There was a notable difference in the change in weight of the calcium carbonate between the different concentrations. The data was reliable as the data was consistent over the three trials and it supported the hypothesis, which was backed by scientific explanation. Acids with a higher concentration contain more acidic particles. Because of this, the reaction was more likely to happen and happened over a larger amount of the surface area of the calcium carbonate. There were no anomalies in the data. As stated previously, the data was consistent over the three trials. Make sure you explain how reliable the data was and why or why not
i think to make i more reliable i would add more stuff to it
to make the experiment more reliable
to make your results more reliable
it is by repeating the experiment a few times which make the results more reliable
performing the experiment multiply times.
To make an experiment more accurate you would have to repeat the experiment 3-5 more times to make it reliable and also you would do what Liverpool college do and compare the answers with other people in the class, community or teacher.
So the experiment's results are more reliable
Observations, spreadsheets, charts, and probably more.
Specific data is always going to be more reliable than general data. The reason for this, is because people can answer more accurately, without giving a broad answer to a question.
false
Peer reviewing involves other scientists testing the data that one scientist has produced and finding it either true or false. If more than the original scientist proves the hypothesis, then the answer is considered more reliable.
You have to state whether or not your hypothesis was supported by the experiment and then explain why or why not. e.g. The hypothesis, if the concentration of the hydrochloric acid is increased, the change in weight of the calcium carbonate will increase, was supported by the experiment that was conducted. There was a notable difference in the change in weight of the calcium carbonate between the different concentrations. The data was reliable as the data was consistent over the three trials and it supported the hypothesis, which was backed by scientific explanation. Acids with a higher concentration contain more acidic particles. Because of this, the reaction was more likely to happen and happened over a larger amount of the surface area of the calcium carbonate. There were no anomalies in the data. As stated previously, the data was consistent over the three trials. Make sure you explain how reliable the data was and why or why not