In a way, all of the answers could be argued for (for example: in the first option: if the scientists' opinions are understood to be "informed understanding of the causes of events"), but one of the options is the best:
Scientific laws describe specific relationships in nature without offering
an explanation.
The reason why I think this is true is that many laws are phased too short and too concise to provide comprehensive explanations, instead they describe the relationships that must hold.
One of the options is pplain false:
Scientific laws explain why natural events occur. -"Scientific laws were theories that have been tested, proven, and adopted as laws." - since they are not adopted as laws.
Ok the answers to the hole .doc is
1. Neutrons, Protons, and Electrons
2. N<span>ucleus
3. N</span>eutrons and Protons
4. Electrons
5. Because they represent different things (I would put this in your own words)
4Na +2e- ---->2Na2
O2 +2e- ------>2O
Answer:
10.86
Explanation:
Given that:
Concentration = 0.0288 M
Consider the ICE take for the dissociation of ammonia as:
NH₃ + H₂O ⇄ NH₄⁺ + OH⁻
At t=0 0.0288 - -
At t =equilibrium (0.0288-x) x x
The expression for dissociation constant of ammonia is:
x is very small, so (0.0288 - x) ≅ 0.0288
Solving for x, we get:
x = 7.2×10⁻⁴ M
pOH = -log[OH⁻] = -log(7.2×10⁻⁴) = 3.14
Also,
pH + pOH = 14
So, pH = 10.86
Answer:
<em>The polyoxometalates initially abstract the hydrogen of the alkane to form the alkyl radical and the reduced polyoxometalates. The reduced polyoxometalates subsequently react with nitric acid to produce the oxidized form and nitrogen dioxide.</em>
Explanation: