1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
xz_007 [3.2K]
3 years ago
14

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration p

oint to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
Chemistry
1 answer:
pochemuha3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

Option A is correct.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

Explanation:

The main aim of the argument presented is to talk down the use of burning by incinerators method to dispose chemical waste. The argument presents great points in that there were 40 incidents at two existing commissioned incinerators in the last year where unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents happened.

So, basically, the argument is all about how the high frequency of the unsuspected release of dangerous chemical agents should discourage this method of chemical waste disposal.

The argument then concluded that if more chemical waste are disposed using the burning by incinerator method, there will be more unsuspected release of dangerous chemicals.

We are then required to find the statement that most weakens the conclusion that there will be more toxic releases if more chemical waste are burned.

Analysing the Statements one by one

Statement A

This statement provides a possible reason for this high frequency of dangerous chemical releases. It states that the staff haven't been properly trained. So, this means that properly training the staff should most likely lead to lesser cases of toxic releases into the environment.

This is the statement that most weakens the conclusion.

Statement B

The conclusion wasn't about the incinerator method being the safest method. It was about whether increased incineration would lead to more toxic relaeses. So, this doesn't affect the conclusion.

Statement C

This statement says that incineration can be increased without building new incinerators by tapping into unused capacity at the old incinerators. Also doesn't affect rhe conclusion whether increased use of incineration will lead to more toxic leaks.

Statement D

This statement strengthens the argument; which is the opposite of what we're aiming to achieve.

Statement E

This statement hints that the toxic leaks do not have that much of a harmful effect because the toxic releases do not go beyond the property of the incinerator. This also doesnt tackle the conclusion about the frequency of leaks, it only addresses how not harmful the toxic leaks can be.

Hope this Helps!!!

You might be interested in
The chemical formula for ethanol is C2H601.How many total atoms are in 30 molecules of ethanol?
12345 [234]
There are two carbon atoms in every ethanol molecule, so there would be 60 carbons all together.

I hope this helped you!
3 0
3 years ago
Give one chemical property of soda ash.
Elenna [48]
<span>Soda ash is sodium carbonate, Na2CO3. One chemical property of this compound is its basicity, which is measured by the pKb. The pKb for sodium carbonate is 3.67. It is the result of the dissociation of Na2CO3 in water: Na2CO3 + H2O = Na HCO3 + Na (+) + OH(-). This pKb means that it is a highly basic compound. pKb = log { 1 / [OH-] }, so pKb is a measure of the concentrations of OH- ions, which is the basiciity of the compound. </span>
4 0
2 years ago
How many moles in 2.21 x10E24 atoms of aluminum
lisov135 [29]
<h3>Answer:</h3>

3.67 mol Al

<h3>General Formulas and Concepts:</h3>

<u>Math</u>

<u>Pre-Algebra</u>

Order of Operations: BPEMDAS

  1. Brackets
  2. Parenthesis
  3. Exponents
  4. Multiplication
  5. Division
  6. Addition
  7. Subtraction
  • Left to Right<u> </u>

<u>Chemistry</u>

<u>Atomic Structure</u>

  • Avogadro's Number - 6.022 × 10²³ atoms, molecules, formula units, etc.

<u>Stoichiometry</u>

  • Using Dimensional Analysis
<h3>Explanation:</h3>

<u>Step 1: Define</u>

2.21 × 10²⁴ atoms Al

<u>Step 2: Identify Conversions</u>

Avogadro's Number

<u>Step 3: Convert</u>

  1. Set up:                              \displaystyle 2.21 \cdot 10^{24} \ atoms \ Al(\frac{1 \ mol \ Al}{6.022 \cdot 10^{23} \ atoms \ Al})
  2. Divide:                              \displaystyle 3.66988 \ mol \ Al

<u>Step 4: Check</u>

<em>Follow sig fig rules and round. We are given 3 sig figs.</em>

3.66988 mol Al ≈ 3.67 mol Al

7 0
2 years ago
Consider the following balanced equation. SiO2(s)+3C(s)→SiC(s)+2CO(g) Complete the following table, showing the appropriate numb
vlada-n [284]

Answer:

mol(SiO₂)              mol(C)               mol(SiC)                    mol(CO)

      3                          9                          3                                6

      1                           3                           1                                2

     13                         39                         13                             26

    2.5                        7.5                       2.5                            5.0

    1.4                         4.2                        1.4                            2.8

Explanation:

  • From the balanced equation:

<em>SiO₂(s) + 3C(s) → SiC(s) + 2CO(g),</em>

  • It is clear that 1.0 mole of SiO₂ reacts with 3.0 moles of C to produce 1.0 mole of SiC and 2.0 moles of CO.
  • We can complete the table of no. of moles of each component:

<u><em>1. 9.0 moles of C:</em></u>

We use the triple amount of C, so we multiply the others by 3.0.

So, it will be 3.0 moles of SiO₂ with 9.0 moles of C that produce 3.0 moles of SiC and 6.0 moles of CO.

<u><em>2. 1.0 mole of SiO₂:</em></u>

We use the same amount of SiO₂ as in the balnced equation, so the no. of moles of other components will be the same as in the balanced equation.

So, it will be 1.0 moles of SiO₂ with 3.0 moles of C that produce 1.0 moles of SiC and 2.0 moles of CO.

<u><em>3. 26.0 moles of CO:</em></u>

We use the amount of CO higher by 13 times than that in the balanced equation, so we multiply the others by 13.0.

So, it will be 13.0 moles of SiO₂ with 39.0 moles of C that produce 13.0 moles of SiC and 26.0 moles of CO.

<u><em>4. 7.5 moles of C:</em></u>

We use the amount of C higher by 2.5 times than that in the balanced equation, so we multiply the others by 2.5.

So, it will be 2.5 moles of SiO₂ with 7.5 moles of C that produce 2.5 moles of SiC and 5.0 moles of CO.

<u><em>5. 1.4 moles of SiO₂:</em></u>

We use the amount of SiO₂ higher by 1.4 times than that in the balanced equation, so we multiply the others by 1.4.

So, it will be 1.4 moles of SiO₂ with 4.2 moles of C that produce 1.4 moles of SiC and 2.8 moles of CO.

5 0
2 years ago
The anion of which element has a –1 charge?
vovangra [49]
An anion is a negatively charged ion. An element can become an anion if it takes an extra electron such that it has one more electron than protons.
Atoms would preferentially taken an extra electron so that it can have a full octet and be more stable.

\sf Cl^-, Br^-, F^- are some of the few elements that would have a -1 charge.
6 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did Mendeleev feel about Russian science education when he came back from Germany
    7·2 answers
  • A compound with a molar mass of 60g/mol is 40.4% carbon, 6.7% hydrogen and 53.3% oxygen (by mass). determine the emperical and m
    13·1 answer
  • Four students wrote different analogies to describe an electron before the formation of an ionic bond.
    8·2 answers
  • 1. What is the definition of the word "petition"?
    6·2 answers
  • A solution has a concetration of 0.3mol/dm3 of sodium hydroxide .what volume of
    5·1 answer
  • Zn(s) + 2HCl(aq) → ZnCl2(aq) + H2(g)
    12·1 answer
  • Need answer now! 100 points
    11·2 answers
  • What is the percentage composition of carbon and hydrogen in ethane(c2h6,molecular mass 30.0)<br>​
    5·1 answer
  • Which statement is true of all chemical reactions? They can go in just one direction. They can go in just one direction. They oc
    6·1 answer
  • Ecosystem 8L.3. 1-2 1 1 of 25
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!