Ekman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,615
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Yeah but if we continue to take results from one pond, we cannot make a reliable judgment about the contamination site. Hence greater variety results must be taken into consideration in order to properly determine the effects of the contamination site. Remember, the aim of the experiment isn't about measuring lead concentrations of one pond, it was to measure the impacts of the contamination site, which involves taking more than one pond into consideration.But by checking from the same source multiple times you can determine whether there is a consistency in results + for it to be reliable it can be performed by other people but UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AND THE SAME LOCATION - Think about the measuring the value of G prac in physics; the value will vary on location and this kind of reflects that as well
Not sure if this makes sense though ...
Edit: For example if Pond A says there is 50 ppm of lead present, and we keep on repeating the experiment on that one lake, and keep getting 50 ppm, how would we make a reliable judgment about the contamination site?