Question

scribe their experiment.
o back and watch between 2:30 - 3:15 in the video).
how many greenhouses are there?
what are the sounds in each of them?

1. what were the results of the experiment?

(how did the plants exposed to talking/music compare to the control?)

1. why does the team say that the results are plausible but can’t be totally confirmed?
2. how does this experiment connect (or not connect) to photosynthesis?

explain your reasoning.

Explanation:

Question 7

Photosynthesis is the process where plants use light, \( CO_2 \), and water to make glucose and oxygen. The experiment involves sound/talking exposure. If the sound/talking influenced factors like plant stress (affecting stomatal opening for \( CO_2 \) intake) or worker behavior (e.g., watering, light exposure), it could connect. But if the experiment didn’t control light, \( CO_2 \), or water (key photosynthesis inputs), the connection is weak. For example, positive talk might reduce plant stress, opening stomata more for \( CO_2 \), aiding photosynthesis. If the experiment lacked control over photosynthesis - critical factors, results about growth (from the experiment) might not directly link to photosynthesis, as growth depends on photosynthesis output (glucose).

Answer:

The experiment may connect to photosynthesis if sound/talking affects factors like plant stress (impacting \( CO_2 \) intake for photosynthesis) or worker care (e.g., light/water for photosynthesis). For example, kind talking could reduce stress, opening stomata to let in more \( CO_2 \) (a key photosynthesis reactant), boosting glucose production. However, if the experiment didn’t control photosynthesis - critical factors (light, \( CO_2 \), water), the connection is uncertain. If growth (from the experiment) is linked to photosynthesis, better growth from kind talking might mean more efficient photosynthesis (more glucose for growth). But without controlling these factors, the link is plausible but not confirmed, as other variables could explain growth.