2006-08-10 13:05:39 · 10 answers · asked by cazz c 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
So they'll know it was that variable alone which causes any change.
2006-08-10 13:09:36 · answer #1 · answered by fishing66833 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because using one variable at a time the scientist can monitor the changes in experiment, control where the experiment can go in terms of what needed to be done or what can be used in trials so that the experiment can produce a result. This way if the experiment resulted in something that is expected or not expected than they can use other variables to be used in the experiment next time around.
2006-08-10 13:14:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if you tested more than one variable at a time there'd be no way to know if the effect was caused by one variable or the other or a combination of both together. You have to have a control situation with no variables. Then you vary one thing at a time. You can vary two things at a time, but you have to be testing for how those two things together affect the overall reaction or whatever it is you are testing.
2006-08-10 16:00:44 · answer #3 · answered by Stephanie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Often when performing expermimental anaylsis, variability with obtained data is preety much a given. Scientifically, to reduce the margin of error in an experiment, the best practice is to determine the optimal conditions under which the variable can be solely analysed and determine its effects on the equation of the experiment. Simplicity is the key to understanding. There is no point in analysing two variable at the one time unless you wished to see there effects on one another.
2006-08-10 13:33:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if you test more than one variable at a time and something changes you have no Idea which one made the change or what really happened.
2006-08-10 13:29:58 · answer #5 · answered by youngan'curious 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It helps them to isolate the reason and results of the test. dealing with assorted variables means that finding a reason can in hassle-free terms be deduced to those variables. Going one by utilising one prevents greater artwork for the test contained sooner or later.
2016-09-29 03:35:20 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easier to observe and correlate, but I'm not sure it really is advantageous. An experiment that is genuinely impacted by multiple variables may not be optimally observable.
2006-08-10 13:15:00 · answer #7 · answered by noitall 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if u test multiple variables simultaneously and u find that the experimental results differ from the control results, how are u supposed to know wut caused that change??? this is the reason that u wont b able to conclude unless uv only tested one variable...
2006-08-10 16:50:14 · answer #8 · answered by Toni E 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So everything about the experiment can be more precise and accurate.
2006-08-10 13:11:34 · answer #9 · answered by KassieB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To avoid confounding factors.
2006-08-10 13:13:11 · answer #10 · answered by Amy P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋