Conclusion: in summary, after observing part 1 and 2, our hypothesis should be refuted. Even though the hypothesis for part 1 was proven correct, the hypothesis for part 2 was proven wrong. In part 1, we hypothesized that Brand A (Hubba Bubba) would make bigger bubbles because it is thicker/stronger and won’t break as easily as it grows and will be more sturdy than Brand B (Big League Chew). According to our observations and measurements our hypothesis was supported as Hubba Bubba’s average bubble size was 17.6cm vs. Big League Chew’s average of 11.6cm. In Part 2, we hypothesized that the size of the bubble does relate to stretch ability size because the gum that blew the bigger bubbles will be stronger and stretch further. (Hubba Bubba would stretch further.) Then after observing and collecting data we came to the conclusion that if one brand of gum has a bugger bubble size than another Brand, it doesnt necessarily mean the stretchability is larger as well. Because if it blows a bigger bubble it’s because it is stronger and wont break as easily as the thinner, breakable but more stretchy gum. Hubba Bubba stretched 46.1cm and Big League Chew stretched 82 cm. There were many factors that affected the outcome of this lab, especially for part 2. I think Brand A was sitting, drying up before we stretched it vs Brand B that had recently been chewed. (Still soft/stretchy) Some other factors are -the ability to blow bubbles (experience). – The length of time that the gum was chewed while trying to blow bubbles. – Whether or not the gum was chewed for too long.- the chewers strength, how soft it got. And – the saliva of the chewer. The measurements of the bubbles and stretchability is described as quantititave and the observations like texture and appearance are described as qualititave. SI units were also used in the beggining of the lab to measure the weight of the gum in grams and to measure the circumference and length of the gum.