<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><oembed><type>video</type><version>1.0</version><html>&lt;iframe src=&quot;https://www.loom.com/embed/374978de6423472492c0baeefc66965c&quot; frameborder=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;1038&quot; height=&quot;778&quot; webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</html><height>778</height><width>1038</width><provider_name>Loom</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.loom.com</provider_url><thumbnail_height>778</thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width>1038</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_url>https://cdn.loom.com/sessions/thumbnails/374978de6423472492c0baeefc66965c-00001.jpg</thumbnail_url><duration>134</duration><title>S1 Q52 SAT #3</title><description>p:  Do the data in the table provide support for the authors’ claim that infection with varroa mites increases a honeybee’s susceptibility to secondary infections? 
a:  Yes, because the data provide evidence that infection with a pathogen caused the colonies to undergo colony collapse disorder. ;
 Yes, because for each pathogen, the percent of colonies infected is greater for colonies with colony collapse disorder than for colonies without colony collapse disorder. ;
 No, because the data do not provide evidence about bacteria as a cause of colony collapse disorder. ;
 No, because the data do not indicate whether the honeybees had been infected with mites.  ;</description></oembed>