I have found many conclusions for my project on the effects oil has on the algae. The very obvious conclusion of my project is that algae most definitely effects algae in one area. The drastic effects of oil on my test samples can be easily seen through the microscope. You can get a perspective on the Gulf of Mexico accident that happened the summer of 2010. Billions of gallons of oil were spilled into the Gulf, without doubt there was a decrease in the wildlife in the Gulf. With my experiment, you can see how little of oil you need to kill off a simple sample of algae in a confined area. I only put around .20mL of oil into beaker Beaker 2 (low concentration) and all the algae in the beaker is now ceased to be. With my hypothesis, I was somewhat accurate by saying the beakers will be very different by the end of the experiment but I never imagined what would have happened with Beaker 2 and 3. You can see that even .20mL of oil is too much for algae, not putting into factor the rest of the wildlife that was effected in the spill.  I hope nothing like this disaster will ever happen again due to the decrease in that area of wildlife that oil can cause. 


How did your experiment support or contradict your original hypothesis? How could you improve your experiment? Did everything go as planned or were there unexpected results? Does what you learned lead to a new question to ask or experiment that would answer it? If so, why would it be important, interesting, or useful to do?


Judges' Tip
An excellent conclusion will explain how the experiment answers the question or why it fails to do so and whether or not it supports the hypothesis (500 words maximum).