The answer is 3 It is a body of knowledge gained using inquiry and experimentation. Hope this helped!
Answer:
Population of duck and frog will change with the change
Explanation:
The complete question is
Scientists are studying animals in a large lake area. In this lake area, both owls and raccoons eat ducks, and ducks eat frogs. The data shows that recently the size of the raccoon population decreased. How will the decrease in the raccoon population affect the other populations? Be sure to explain whether the owl population, the duck population, and the frog population will change, and why.
- Owl population will change
-
Duck population will change
-
Frog population will change
Solution
Raccoon eat duck and duck eat frog. Now if the population of Raccoon decreases then the number of predators of duck will decrease thereby increasing the population of duck.
The higher will be the number of ducks, the more frogs they will consume thereby decreasing the population of frogs
Hence both the population of duck and frog will change with the change
Answer:
Increase
Explanation:
According to Gay-Lussac Law,
The pressure of given amount of a gas is directly proportional to its temperature at constant volume and number of moles.
Mathematical relationship:
P₁/T₁ = P₂/T₂
If the initial temperature and pressure is standard,
Pressure = 1 atm
Temperature = 273.15 K
then we increase the temperature to 400.0 K, The pressure will be,
1 atm / 273.15 K = P₂/400.0K
P₂ = 1 atm × 400.0 K / 273.15 K
P₂ = 400.0 atm. K /273.15 K
P₂ = 1.46 atm
Pressure is also increase from 1 atm to 1.46 atm.
Somewhere in the Orange to red range
Answer:
C and D
Explanation:
Claims based on science are claims that can be backed up by data and evidence. In the sentence "Data from ice cores show that global temperatures are rising dramatically.", the part "Data from" inclines that there is factually proof backing up the claim. Part of the sentence "Satellite imagery shows.." inclines that there is also proof/evidence backing this claim. The other two sentences are <em>opinions</em> based on science. Instead, they should give some sort of data/evidence that would support that claim.