Conclusion: Our first set of experiments monitored the light intensity placed on the plants and how that

intensity directly effected the rate of photosynthesis. As we analyzed our results, we saw that the average amount of bubbles released from each different distance produced relatively the same results, differing by only one bubble on the farthest distance. These results do not support our hypothesis that stated the intensity of light on the plant will determine the rate of photosynthesis. We came to this conclusion given that at each different distance, or intensity level, we recorded roughly the same results. The second set of experiments monitored the different colors of light placed on the plants and how that change in color directly effected the rate of photosynthesis. As we reviewed our second set of data recorded, we saw that the colored light that was a shade of red produced more bubbles than the green or clear shades. Given that our hypothesis stated the red would produce a faster rate of photosynthesis, these results directly support our hypothesis. The third and final set of experiments we conducted consisted of different levels of a!ing "oda #$O%& being placed in plants and monitoring how the rate of photosynthesis was affected. Our hypothesis stated that the higher amounts of $O% placed in the plants, the faster the rate of photosynthesis would occur. ased on the results we recorded, our hypothesis was not supported by this experiment. The plant that was exposed to the least amount of $O% had the highest rate of photosynthesis. We directly compared this result to the plant with the most $O% exposure, which had the lowest rate of photosynthesis. As one can see from the above reflections, our second set of experiments was the only set that resulted in hypothesis support. When we changed each color of light, they rate of photosynthesis directly changed as well. As we had stated in our hypothesis, the shade of light

closest to red will produce the most amount of released bubbles, which correlates to the highest rate of photosynthesis. 'pon reflection of these experimental results, we believe that our experiments were vastly effected by minor errors. The first error that may have effected out results would be measurement of distance for our intensity experiment. (uring this experiment, we had not accounted for an extra inch of distance that the lighting structure added. As we became aware of this extra distance, we started to correct our measurements. This difference of roughly an inch could have had a ma)or, or minor effect on our experiment results. Another error that could have effected our results for all three experiments would be the cut of our plants. (ifferent plants were cut at different lengths and times, which could have effected the rate of photosynthesis directly. This could have been a ma)or or minor effect. *astly, the final error that could have effected our results would be the continuous use of the same plants. Given that we did not change the plants until the final run of the final $O% experiment, the repeated exposure to different variables could have directly effected the rate of photosynthesis and the results we recorded. We did account for the amount of water placed in each test tube, which was a control that we tried to !eep accurately e+ual for all experiments. Although we listed lengths of plants as a supposed error, we tried our hardest to cut each plants as close to each other as possible, yet we had no exact length or guidelines to follow. 'pon contemplation of our recorded experiments, we came to the conclusion that our experiment was ,OT definitive.