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.
Answer:
Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom is based on three postulates:
1) An electron moves around the nucleus in a circular orbit,
2) An electron's angular momentum in the orbit is quantised,
3) The change in an electron's energy as it makes a quantum jump from one orbit to another is always accompanied by the emission or absorption of a photon. Bohr's model is semi-classical because it combines the classical concept of electron orbit (postulate 1) with the new concept of quantisation ( postulates 2 and ).