1.194 mol
(remember to use sig figs!)
Answer:
Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science.
Explanation:
Scientists are keen to avoid bias of any kind because they threaten scientific ideals such as objectivity, transparency and rationality. The scientific community has made substantial efforts to detect, explicate and critically examine different types of biases (Sackett, 1979; Ioannidis, 2005; Ioannidis, 2018; Macleod et al., 2015). One example of this is the catalogue of all the biases that affect medical evidence compiled by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University (catalogueofbias.org). Such awareness is commonly seen as a crucial step towards making science objective, transparent and free from bias.
Answer: The products are carbon monoxide, water and carbon.
Explanation:
Answer:
see explanation below
Explanation:
Question is incomplete, so in picture 1, you have a sample of this question with the missing data.
Now, in general terms, the absorbance of a substance can be calculated using the beer's law which is the following:
A = εlc
Where:
ε: molar absortivity
l: distance of the light in solution
c: concentration of solution
However, in this case, we have a plot line and a equation for this plot, so all we have to do is replace the given data into the equation and solve for x, which is the concentration.
the equation according to the plot is:
A = 15200c - 0.018
So solving for C for an absorbance of 0.25 is:
0.25 = 15200c - 0.018
0.25 + 0.018 = 15200c
0.268 = 15200c
c = 0.268/15200
c = 1.76x10⁻⁵ M
