Since a plant in the sunlight was the same height as one in the shade right next to it, I could conclude that the amount of sunlight a plant is exposed to does not affect its height. This conclusion would lead me to consider other possible explanations for the difference in plant growth by thinking what other variables could potentially affect plant growth, observing the yard, and determining where those variables could lie. Since plant height varied in different areas of the yard, it's possible that the soil composition is different in those areas and is affecting plant growth. I would design an experiment using that as the independent variable.

The shade structure acts as the control in this experiment, since the independent variable is the amount of sunlight the plants are exposed to. The shade structure allows us to see the effects of No Sunlight on the plants and use it as a point of comparison. Based on the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between sunlight exposure and plant height, the plants under the structure will be the shortest.

To be falsified is to prove that the statement/claim is false. In this case, the null hypothesis would indicate that the new drug does not have any influence over blood pressure. So, if the experiment had falsified the null hypothesis, then her experiment showed that there was an influence on blood pressure by the new drug. Falsification is critical to the scientific method because it acts as a step towards a "more accurate" explanation by eliminating what is not accurate.

Whenever my mom is driving the two of us somewhere, we have a tendency to be sort of directionally challenged and miss turns and whatnot. Driving 8 hours to move into my dorm room was a bit of a nightmare. Personally, I think it's partially her fault too for not listening to me very well, but I've since learned that to avoid both getting lost and any lectures from my mother, I need to be very clear and precise about the directions I give. Instead of a "turn right at the light," I'll have to say "turn right on X street in Y miles." It saves us both the headache.

This reminds me of a comic I once saw, where two people are looking at a number on the ground from different angles. One person, at one end of the number, says it's a "6" while the other, from the opposite side, claims it's a "9". I think the point of drawing was to show how perspective influences how you view something, which is certainly true and especially so in situations where there is no definitive answer you can look to.

But it also makes you think: someone else, some other third party, painted that number on the ground. Whoever put it there had an intention behind it and surely had their own idea on what it was (a 9 or a 6). Not to mention, it's always important to take into account the greater context- is there other text beside the number to which you can align yourself with and figure out how it should be read? When put next to, say for example, a 4, the "9 or 6" loses its ambiguity and it can only be one of the two.

Last quarter, in BIS2C, I found that drawing actually helped me quite a bit when it came to understanding concepts. Sure, I could've very well just memorized which characteristics belonged to which taxa, but that tactic wouldn't have helped me grasp the concept in a larger, evolutionary sense. Instead, by physically drawing out the phylogenies and marking the branches where certain traits evolved, I was able to better understand and visualize how everything linked together.