ACT Science Quiz: Identifying Sources Of Error
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Identifying Sources Of ErrorQuestion 1 of 20

During a titration experiment, if the burette readings are consistently read from below eye level, the measured concentration of the solution would most likely:

Remain unaffected.
Show increased variability.
Be lower than the actual concentration.
Be higher than the actual concentration.
← Back to quizzes

ACT Science Quiz

ACT Science Quiz: Identifying Sources Of Error

Practice Identifying Sources Of Error in ACT Science with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Identifying Sources Of Error, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for ACT Science.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

During a titration experiment, if the burette readings are consistently read from below eye level, the measured concentration of the solution would most likely:

  1. Remain unaffected.
  2. Show increased variability.
  3. Be lower than the actual concentration.
  4. Be higher than the actual concentration. (correct answer)
Explanation: Reading burette levels from below eye level creates a systematic error due to parallax, where the meniscus appears higher than its actual position. This causes the experimenter to consistently record larger volumes than actually dispensed, leading to an overestimation of the titrant volume used. Since concentration calculations involve dividing by the volume of titrant, overestimating this volume results in calculating a higher concentration than the true value. This systematic bias affects all readings in the same direction, distinguishing it from random measurement errors.

Question 2

A researcher uses a stopwatch to time a reaction that lasts approximately 2 seconds and records the time to the nearest hundredth of a second. If human reaction time affects the start and stop of the timing, the measured reaction time would most likely:

  1. be longer than the actual reaction time
  2. be shorter than the actual reaction time
  3. have no effect on the measured time
  4. vary randomly around the actual time (correct answer)
Explanation: Human reaction time affects both the start and stop of timing, introducing random error that causes measurements to vary unpredictably around the actual reaction time. The researcher's reflexes will sometimes be faster and sometimes slower when pressing the stopwatch, and these delays don't consistently favor either starting too early/late or stopping too early/late. This creates variability where some measurements will be slightly longer than the actual time and others slightly shorter, with the errors being random rather than systematic. The effect is particularly noticeable for short reactions like 2 seconds, where human reaction time (typically 0.1-0.3 seconds) represents a significant fraction of the total measured time.

Question 3

To determine the speed of sound, an experimenter used an echo method. Procedure: (1) Stand 50.0 m from a large wall (distance measured with a measuring tape). (2) Clap two wooden blocks together and start a stopwatch at the clap. (3) Stop the stopwatch when the echo is heard. (4) Compute speed as v=2d/tv=2d/t. The experiment was done outdoors on a windy day; wind direction changed during trials. The experimenter also sometimes anticipated the echo and stopped the stopwatch early. Expected result: similar speeds across trials near 340 m/s. The variability in the calculated speeds was most likely caused by:

  1. Wind changes, which alter sound travel time inconsistently and therefore create random variation in measured speed. (correct answer)
  2. Using a measuring tape, which has perfect accuracy and eliminates all distance uncertainty.
  3. Computing v=2d/tv=2d/t, which always doubles the true speed and creates a systematic error.
  4. Standing 50.0 m away, which guarantees the echo time is long enough to remove reaction-time error entirely.
Explanation: Wind changes create the most significant source of variability by altering sound travel time inconsistently across trials. Wind can either aid or oppose sound transmission, causing the sound to travel faster or slower than in still air, which directly affects the measured echo time and calculated speed. Since wind direction and speed vary unpredictably during outdoor trials, this creates random variation in the calculated speeds that is much larger than other potential error sources. The wind effect on sound transmission is the primary factor causing trial-to-trial differences in measured sound speed.

Question 4

An experimenter investigated how light intensity affects photosynthesis using aquatic plants. Steps: (1) Place equal-length plant sprigs in four beakers of water with baking soda. (2) Position a lamp at distances of 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, and 40 cm. (3) After 2 minutes, count oxygen bubbles produced in 1 minute for each beaker. (4) Repeat twice. The lamp warmed the nearest beaker noticeably, and room lights were turned on and off as people entered. Bubble counting was done by eye, and some bubbles merged before reaching the surface. Expected pattern: closer lamp produces more bubbles. Which factor is the most significant source of error in this procedure?

  1. Lamp heating the nearest beaker, changing temperature and confounding light intensity with reaction rate. (correct answer)
  2. Using baking soda, which prevents photosynthesis by removing dissolved carbon dioxide.
  3. Counting bubbles by eye, which creates a constant offset but does not affect comparisons across distances.
  4. Repeating twice, which doubles systematic error and makes the trend appear stronger than it is.
Explanation: Lamp heating of the nearest beaker creates the most significant error source by changing temperature and confounding light intensity with reaction rate effects. The heat from the lamp raises the water temperature in the closest beaker, increasing the metabolic rate and photosynthesis rate due to temperature effects rather than just light intensity. This creates systematic bias because the nearest beaker experiences both maximum light intensity and elevated temperature, making it impossible to determine whether increased bubble production results from light or heat. The confounding of these two variables fundamentally compromises the experimental design.

Question 5

A student measured the concentration of a sugar solution using a hydrometer. Steps: (1) Pour solution into a tall cylinder. (2) Lower the hydrometer gently until it floats freely. (3) Read the scale at the liquid surface and record specific gravity. (4) Repeat for three solutions. The student read the scale from slightly above the meniscus, and bubbles sometimes stuck to the hydrometer stem. The solutions were at different temperatures because some were freshly mixed with warm water. Expected pattern: higher sugar concentration gives higher specific gravity. Which procedural error would have the greatest effect on the results?

  1. Repeating three times, which introduces extra error compared with taking a single careful reading.
  2. Using a tall cylinder, which increases specific gravity by increasing hydrostatic pressure.
  3. Reading from slightly above the meniscus, causing tiny random parallax errors that cancel across solutions.
  4. Different solution temperatures, changing density and causing systematic differences unrelated to sugar concentration. (correct answer)
Explanation: Different solution temperatures create the most significant error source by changing fluid density independently of sugar concentration. Since hydrometer readings depend on the density difference between the solution and the hydrometer's calibrated density scale, temperature variations cause systematic density changes that are unrelated to sugar content. Warmer solutions have lower density than cooler ones, leading to systematically different specific gravity readings even for identical sugar concentrations. This temperature effect introduces systematic bias that can easily overwhelm the sugar concentration effect being measured.

Question 6

A student tested how fertilizer affects plant growth. Procedure: (1) Fill 12 pots with the same brand of potting soil. (2) Plant one bean seed per pot at 2 cm depth. (3) Assign 3 pots each to 0 g, 1 g, 2 g, or 3 g fertilizer mixed into the top layer. (4) Water each pot with "about 50 mL" daily using a cup without volume markings. (5) Measure plant height after 14 days using a ruler. The pots were placed on a windowsill; some received direct sunlight longer than others. Expected pattern: moderate fertilizer increases height, but too much may reduce growth. Which procedural error would have the greatest effect on the results?

  1. Using the same brand of soil, which contaminates all pots with identical nutrients and invalidates comparisons.
  2. Measuring height with a ruler, which is too precise and therefore introduces systematic bias.
  3. Planting seeds at 2 cm depth, which guarantees all seeds germinate at the same time.
  4. Watering with an unmarked cup, creating random daily water differences that can strongly affect growth. (correct answer)
Explanation: Watering with an unmarked cup creates the most significant error source by introducing random daily water differences that strongly affect plant growth. Since water availability is a critical factor for plant development, the uncontrolled variation in daily watering amounts (some plants receiving significantly more or less than the intended 50 mL) would create large random differences in growth rates that could easily mask or distort the fertilizer effects. This watering variability represents a major uncontrolled variable that directly impacts the dependent variable being measured.

Question 7

To measure the concentration of a dye, an experimenter made a calibration curve with a spectrophotometer. Steps: (1) Prepare standards of 0.00, 0.20, 0.40, 0.60, 0.80 mM dye in identical cuvettes. (2) Wipe cuvette sides with a tissue and insert into the instrument in the same orientation. (3) Zero the spectrophotometer using a blank cuvette containing water. (4) Measure absorbance of each standard and plot absorbance vs. concentration. The blank cuvette accidentally contained a very dilute dye solution (not pure water). Expected pattern: absorbance increases linearly with concentration. If the blank contained dye, the measured absorbances of standards would most likely:

  1. All be too low, because subtracting a nonzero blank reduces reported absorbance values systematically. (correct answer)
  2. All be too high, because a dyed blank forces the instrument to add extra absorbance.
  3. Become random, because blank errors affect only some concentrations unpredictably.
  4. Be unchanged, because blank choice affects only the 0.00 mM standard.
Explanation: Using a dyed blank instead of pure water causes all measured absorbances to be systematically too low. When the spectrophotometer zeros using a blank that already contains dye, it subtracts that dye's absorbance from all subsequent measurements. Since absorbance values are calculated relative to the blank, each standard's measured absorbance becomes (true absorbance - blank absorbance), resulting in systematically reduced values across the entire calibration curve. This creates a consistent negative bias in all absorbance measurements.

Question 8

In an experiment to measure the viscosity of a liquid, a student uses a stopwatch to time the descent of a sphere. If the sphere is dropped inconsistently, the viscosity measurements would most likely:

  1. remain unaffected by drop variance.
  2. be consistently higher.
  3. be consistently lower.
  4. show increased variability. (correct answer)
Explanation: Dropping the sphere inconsistently would cause viscosity measurements to show increased variability because the initial conditions of each drop affect the sphere's motion and timing through the viscous liquid. Inconsistent dropping includes variations in initial position, release angle, rotational motion, and initial velocity, all of which influence how the sphere moves through the liquid before reaching terminal velocity. These variable starting conditions mean that some trials will have longer or shorter measured times due to differences in the initial motion phase rather than true differences in viscosity. This procedural inconsistency introduces random error that causes the calculated viscosity values to scatter around the true value, reducing measurement precision.

Question 9

To measure the period of a pendulum, an experimenter used a 1.00 m string and a metal bob. Steps: (1) Measure string length from the support clamp to the bottom of the bob using a meterstick. (2) Pull the bob to a small angle (~10°) and release. (3) Use a handheld stopwatch to time 20 oscillations; divide by 20 to get the period. (4) Repeat for three trials. The lab had an air vent blowing intermittently, and the experimenter started/stopped the stopwatch by watching the bob pass the center point. The meterstick's zero end was slightly chipped, but the experimenter aligned the chipped end to the clamp each time. Expected result: periods should be nearly identical across trials. The variability in the results was most likely caused by:

  1. Using a chipped meterstick end, producing a consistent length bias and therefore a systematic period shift.
  2. Human reaction time when starting and stopping the stopwatch, creating random trial-to-trial timing differences. (correct answer)
  3. Timing 20 oscillations instead of 1, which increases random timing error by a factor of 20.
  4. Measuring length to the bottom of the bob, which is the correct reference point for pendulum length.
Explanation: Human reaction time when starting and stopping the stopwatch creates the most significant error source. Each trial requires the experimenter to visually detect when the bob passes the center point and react to start/stop the stopwatch, introducing random timing differences of typically 0.1-0.3 seconds per measurement. Since each period calculation involves two reaction-time errors (start and stop), this creates substantial trial-to-trial variability in the measured periods. The chipped meterstick creates systematic error but affects all measurements equally, while timing 20 oscillations actually reduces random error by averaging.

Question 10

An experimenter compared melting points of two wax samples. Procedure: (1) Place a small wax piece in a thin glass capillary tube. (2) Attach the tube to a thermometer and immerse both in a hot water bath. (3) Heat the bath slowly and record the temperature when the wax first becomes transparent. (4) Repeat for the second wax. The water bath was heated on a hot plate that cycled on/off, causing temperature to rise in small jumps. The thermometer bulb sometimes touched the beaker wall. Expected pattern: each wax has a characteristic melting point. Which factor is the most significant source of error in this procedure?

  1. Heating with a cycling hot plate, causing overshoot and making the observed melting temperature systematically too high. (correct answer)
  2. Using a capillary tube, which prevents wax from melting and therefore lowers the measured melting point.
  3. Recording the first transparency, which is unrelated to melting and always gives random temperatures.
  4. Comparing two waxes in the same bath, which forces both to have identical melting points.
Explanation: The cycling hot plate creates the most significant error source by causing temperature overshoot that makes the observed melting temperature systematically too high. When the hot plate cycles on and off, the temperature rises in jumps rather than smoothly, often overshooting the true melting point before the experimenter can observe and record the transition. This temperature overshoot means the recorded melting point is higher than the actual transition temperature. The cycling heating pattern introduces systematic positive bias that consistently elevates all melting point measurements.

Question 11

The consistency of results in a viscosity measurement experiment would most likely be affected by:

  1. Measuring at a constant speed.
  2. Using a digital viscometer.
  3. Mixing liquids with different densities.
  4. Temperature fluctuations during measurement. (correct answer)
Explanation: Temperature fluctuations during viscosity measurement would most significantly affect result consistency because viscosity is highly temperature-dependent for most liquids. As temperature changes, the liquid's viscosity changes accordingly, causing measured values to vary even when using the same sample under otherwise identical conditions. These temperature variations introduce random error since room temperature typically fluctuates unpredictably, leading to scattered results rather than systematic bias. Maintaining constant temperature is crucial for reproducible viscosity measurements since even small temperature changes can produce significant viscosity variations.

Question 12

A student measured the pH change during a neutralization reaction by adding 0.10 M NaOH to 25.0 mL of 0.10 M HCl. Steps: (1) Place HCl in a beaker with a magnetic stir bar. (2) Calibrate a pH probe using pH 4 and pH 7 buffers. (3) Add NaOH in 1.0 mL increments using a syringe, recording pH after each addition. (4) Continue until 35 mL NaOH is added. The syringe had worn markings and delivered 1.0 mL when the plunger was set to 0.9 mL (a consistent error). Expected pattern: pH rises slowly, then sharply near equivalence. If the syringe error occurred, the equivalence point volume would most likely be measured as:

  1. Unchanged, because equivalence depends only on molarity, not on volume delivered.
  2. Too large, because actual added volume is less than the recorded volume at every step.
  3. More variable only, because a consistent syringe bias creates random scatter in pH readings.
  4. Too small, because actual added volume exceeds the recorded volume at every step. (correct answer)
Explanation: The equivalence point volume would be measured as too small because the actual delivered volume exceeds the recorded volume at every step. Since the syringe delivers 1.0 mL when set to 0.9 mL, the student consistently adds more NaOH than recorded. The equivalence point occurs when the actual moles of NaOH equal the moles of HCl, but this happens at a smaller recorded volume than expected because more base is being delivered per increment. The systematic over-delivery means fewer recorded increments are needed to reach neutralization.

Question 13

A technician measured the conductivity of six salt solutions, each read once. Figure 1 shows the readings. The technician expects conductivity to rise steadily with salt concentration.

Which reading in Figure 1 most clearly does not fit the pattern of the others?

  1. The reading at 1.0 g/L
  2. The reading at 2.0 g/L (correct answer)
  3. The reading at 2.5 g/L
  4. The reading at 3.0 g/L
Explanation: Five of the six readings climb steadily by about 1 mS/cm for every 0.5 g/L: 1.1, 2.0, 3.1, then 5.0 and 6.1. The reading at 2.0 g/L is 8.2 mS/cm, well above both its neighbours, and the next reading drops back to 5.0. Conductivity falling as concentration rises is not something the other five readings support, so that point is the one out of line.

Question 14

In an experiment to determine the speed of sound, students measure the time taken for an echo to return after a clap. If they do not account for temperature variations, the speed of sound calculated would most likely:

  1. show random variations unrelated to temperature.
  2. be slower than expected at higher temperatures.
  3. be unaffected by temperature changes.
  4. be faster than expected at higher temperatures. (correct answer)
Explanation: Not accounting for temperature variations would cause the calculated speed of sound to be faster than expected at higher temperatures because sound travels faster in warmer air. The speed of sound increases approximately 0.6 m/s for each degree Celsius increase in air temperature due to increased molecular motion in warmer air. If students use a standard value for the speed of sound (typically measured at 20°C) but conduct their experiment at a higher temperature, their calculated distance will be based on the assumption of a slower sound speed. Since they measure the actual (shorter) time for the echo to return in warmer air, their calculation will yield a speed that appears faster than the expected reference value measured at standard conditions.

Question 15

A weather station records air temperature every four hours. Two identical sensors were mounted a meter apart at the same height, one inside a louvered white screen that keeps sunlight off it while letting air through, the other clamped to a post with nothing above it. The day was clear, with sunrise near hour 6 and sunset near hour 19. Figure 1 shows what both sensors reported.

Which of the following best explains the relationship between the two records in Figure 1?

  1. The unshaded sensor's calibration drifted upward over the course of the day.
  2. The two sensors differ by amounts that follow no pattern through the day.
  3. Sunlight falling on the unshaded sensor warms it above the air around it during daylight hours. (correct answer)
  4. The unshaded sensor reports temperatures above the shaded one by the same amount all day.
Explanation: In the dark the two sensors agree to within about 0.3 °C — at hours 0, 4, and 24 they report almost the same temperature. Through the daylight hours the unshaded sensor runs up to 6.2 °C higher, and by hour 20, an hour after sunset, that gap has already fallen to 1.2 °C and is closing. A sensor in direct sun absorbs radiation and rises above the temperature of the air it is supposed to be measuring, which is exactly why weather stations shade their sensors. A fixed offset would separate the records at night as well, and a drift would leave the unshaded sensor high at hour 24, where it instead comes back to the shaded reading.

Question 16

A student filtered a precipitate, then weighed the damp filter paper on an electronic balance every two minutes to see whether the reading was steady enough to record. Immediately before each weighing of the paper, a sealed steel mass was weighed on the same balance as a check on the balance itself; the pan held only one object at a time. Figure 1 plots both sets of readings as the change from that object's own first weighing, so both start at zero.

Which of the following best explains the readings in Figure 1?

  1. The balance reports every mass placed on it as too small by a fixed amount.
  2. The balance had not finished settling when each reading was taken.
  3. The balance itself lost calibration over the ten minutes of weighing.
  4. Water evaporated from the filter paper while it sat on the balance. (correct answer)
Explanation: The filter paper loses 70 mg over ten minutes while the sealed steel mass, weighed on the same balance moments earlier each time, holds within 1 mg of where it started. A balance that was drifting, or one that was being read before it settled, would move both sets of readings; only the paper moves, so whatever is happening is happening to the paper. Losing mass steadily while sitting in open air is evaporation. A fixed offset in the balance would not show up here at all, because every reading is plotted as a change from that object's own first weighing. The paper should be dried to constant mass before it is weighed.

Question 17

Bacterial colonies growing on an agar plate are counted by eye, and a colony near the rim or touching a neighbor is easy to miss. Two observers each counted the same six plates, working separately and without seeing each other's totals, and each counted every plate once. Table 1 gives both counts for all six plates.

Which of the following does Table 1 most strongly suggest about the counting?

  1. One observer misses colonies the other one counts, on every plate. (correct answer)
  2. The two observers agree closely on the plates with the fewest colonies.
  3. The two observers' counts differ by the same number of colonies on every plate.
  4. The two observers agree except on one plate, which one of them miscounted.
Explanation: Observer 2's count is lower on all six plates, by 21, 18, 14, 25, 19, and 16 colonies. Disagreement in the same direction every time is not the scatter you get from two people counting carefully; as the passage notes, colonies at the rim or touching a neighbor are easy to miss, and one observer is evidently skipping them. The shortfall is not a fixed number of colonies either — it runs from 14 to 25 — but it is about 14% to 15% of the count on every plate, including the plate with the fewest colonies, so the two do not converge on the small plates, and no single plate stands out as the one disagreement.

Question 18

A chemist measured the absorbance of four standard solutions once each and fitted a calibration line through the four points. The chemist wants to know how much of the scatter around that line comes from the instrument itself. Table 1 shows the measurements.

What should the chemist do to answer that question?

  1. Fit a curve through the four points instead of a line
  2. Read each standard several times and compare the repeat readings (correct answer)
  3. Measure the absorbance of pure water
  4. Prepare a fifth standard at a higher concentration
Explanation: Table 1 shows one reading per standard, so there is no way to tell how much a single measurement would move if it were simply repeated. Reading each standard several times shows the spread the instrument produces on its own, which is exactly what the chemist is asking about. Adding a standard or changing the fitted shape tells you about the calibration, not about the instrument's repeatability.

Question 19

A soil-moisture probe reports the percentage of water in the soil it is pushed into. To check that the probe was working, a researcher sealed a soil sample in a jar so that the sample could neither gain nor lose water, left the probe in the sealed sample, and recorded what the probe reported at the same hour every day for ten days. Figure 1 shows those readings.

Which of the following is the best explanation for the readings in Figure 1?

  1. The probe's calibration drifted steadily upward over the ten days of the check. (correct answer)
  2. The soil in the jar took up water from the air above it during the ten days.
  3. The probe reports about 3% more moisture than the soil actually contains.
  4. The probe reported a slightly different number each day for no consistent reason.
Explanation: The sample is sealed, so the water in it cannot change and every reading should have been the same. Instead the readings climb from 22.0% to 25.2%, gaining about 0.35 percentage points a day without once falling back. A steady walk in one direction is drift in the instrument, not noise, which would scatter above and below a fixed level. Water moving between the soil and the air sealed in with it would level off as the two came into balance, rather than climbing at the same rate for ten days. A fixed overstatement would put every reading at the same wrong number rather than a rising one.

Question 20

A glider was released four times along a 1.00 m air track, more gently each time, and each run was timed twice at once. A student started a stopwatch on the release signal and stopped it on seeing the glider reach the far end, so every hand-timed run runs long by roughly the student's reaction time. A photogate timed the same runs electronically as the glider passed. Speed is calculated by dividing the 1.00 m track length by the measured time. Table 1 gives both times for all four runs.

For which run does the hand timing throw off the calculated speed by the largest percentage?

  1. Run 1 (correct answer)
  2. Run 2
  3. Run 3
  4. Run 4
Explanation: The student's reaction adds nearly the same amount to every run — 0.26, 0.26, 0.25, and 0.26 s — but that fixed penalty is a different share of each run, and speed is the track length divided by the time. Run 1 gives 1.00/0.68 = 1.47 m/s by hand against 1.00/0.42 = 2.38 m/s by photogate, which is 38% low. Run 4 gives 1.00/3.66 = 0.273 m/s against 1.00/3.40 = 0.294 m/s, only 7% low. A fixed timing error matters most when the interval being timed is shortest, which is why hand timing damages the fastest run.