# data[].attributes.body
Valve counting as a whole is just not that reliable of a source it can be made

# data[].attributes.body
I believe valve counting is an unreliable source and should not be used because of easy to miss layers.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not support this method because anyone can miss count varves and make the whole answer wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
I think varve counting isn’t accurate because you can’t really see some of the lines and if you miscount the lines it could mess up the rest of the data.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it’s inaccurate because any number of things could have effected the order of the layers and who really can count all the layers without getting tired of looking at the rock.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that varve counting is not accurate to counting fossil layers because of the fact that you never really know how many layers there are due to them being too thin, or faint. Also, the number may change the more you count them whether it increases or decreases, which isn’t good to mark for data.

# data[].attributes.body
I am going both ways for this because i believe that although the idea of carve counting seems reliable and useful it isn’t very exact. Most of the time it seems that there will be a variety of dating answers because the lines are sometimes hard to see, because by missing a single line or two you can change the time period completely. So overall i believe it is useful but not very exact.

# data[].attributes.body
I think valve counting is not accurate because you don’t really know how many layers are really there because one could be to light. Also if you accidentally skip a layer it will mess up all your data.

# data[].attributes.body
I support varve counting because it allows you to tell the amount of years that have passes .Its hard to view the amount of  layers but it’s very useful

# data[].attributes.body
I think varve counting isn’t a reliable source, because somebody could easily miscount or mix up the dark and light layers. Also, these layers can for in a very uneven layers, or they could not be formed all the way through the rock, so they could be very difficult to count them.

# data[].attributes.body
Im unsure because someone can easily miscount and completely mess up all of the data that he/she has tried to find.

# data[].attributes.body
I support varve counting because of the fact that it allows you to tell the amount of years that had passed, but sometimes it is hard to tell how many layers there are but it is still useful so I support it.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that varve counting is not accurate to counting fossil layers . If you miss a layer it will mess up all the data. So I do not support it.

# data[].attributes.body
I am half and half because counting the number of varves makes sense and is almost completely accurate, however, many can mess up on counting which may mess up the data.

# data[].attributes.body
I support it because it allows you to tell the amount of years that passed. But it sometimes it is hard to tell how many layers there are but i still support it because it’s useful

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t support it. It is really not accurate at all there are probably way better ways that we could find the age of these fossils if you miss one line we would mess up the whole age of the fossil.

# data[].attributes.body
I think varve counting isn’t a valuable because if you miss layers in between different varves it will mess up the absolute dating and age of the rock. Also if something would happen and layers would come off of the rock it will mess up the age of the rock.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the counting the varves makes sense and is almost completely accurate, of course there could be exemptions like if the weather was different during a couple of years like, no rain. Sometimes it was more difficult because some layers where really dark in bigger chunks making it harder to count layers. Overall, I like this method and think it is a good method

# data[].attributes.body
I am half and half. I do believe it because it is helpful the way that they are different colors because of what season they formed in. But also it is extremely easy to mess up while counting and count the wrong number of layers

# data[].attributes.body
I support it because it is a good and accurate way to measure the time of each layer. It can be difficult to count some of the layers but it is still the easiest way to find the year.

# data[].attributes.body
I question it because scientists are not exactly sure where one layer ends and another begins so therefore there data may not always be correct

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this method as it is a very good method to use for relative dating. It is fairly easy to tell the start of spring and the start of winter. It shows the layer pretty clearly so I think this method is a well used method

# data[].attributes.body
I support it because the layers represent the seasons it went through such as light meant it formed in the summer and dark formed in the winter and that how geologist knew how long it was around for.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s pretty simple to use considering it’s accuracy. And it measures the layers throughout the seasons.

# data[].attributes.body
I support it because it shows how old a fossil is, it shows them in detail because of the sediment, and it can be very accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
I support this because it measures the layers deposited during winter and summer months, which means that a whole year has gone by for both of these layers to appear so it's safe to assume that it's been around for a year and so on

# data[].attributes.body
I support it because it's any easy way to see how old a rock may be, it shows detail in the fossils because of the sediments in the rocks, the carves aren't easy to count when there is a longer colder time or hotter time because it may look like one together. But I support using this method.

# data[].attributes.body
Derek Jr.

I do support it because it requires the summer season and the winter season And it also shows how they form.

# data[].attributes.body
I do support it because it shows a lot of detail and it's always right with the layers

# data[].attributes.body
I do support it because it is an accurate way to count varies, although a mistake can easily be made if someone miscounts

# data[].attributes.body
I do support it because it because it is fairly easy to understand but each layer is harder and harder to count. The varves require certain environments to form each layer.

# data[].attributes.body
I do support it because it guarantees the amount of years to create a varve. However, the downside to this is counting, you can easily make a mistake counting since the lines are so small.

# data[].attributes.body
I do and dont support it. I do because it makes sense that summer and winter would have different colors. I dont because someone could easily count wrong(count two instead of one or something like that).

# data[].attributes.body
I do support it because this shows a lot of detail and guaranteed amount of years that have passed for a varve. This also is easier for examining because each layer is divided up.

# data[].attributes.body
The small intercaounting layers may impact the results s because someone might count it as two while someone else my see it as one layer.
One exemptions from assuming that a vare equals one year is that for some reason a layer could have been eroded so one layer isn’t there anymore do they results would be messed up.

# data[].attributes.body
I do support this because it requires summer and winter to have occured for the varves to properly form the way they do. This basically guarantees that a full year has gone by for a varve to be formed. Thus. I support this.

# data[].attributes.body
I do support this as it does make sense. However it makes it really hard to count each individual layer.