Answer: The specific heat of this compound is
a) It is higher than the specific heat of water.
Explanation:
Specific heat is the amount of heat needed by a substance of one gram to raise it's temperature by 1°C.
This specific heat is impacted by the strength of hydrogen bonding in any substance.
Hydrogen has the highest specific heat.
Value of specific heat is directly proportional to strength of bonding in a substance.
If the bonding is strong, it will need more energy to raise its temperature. Hence, specific heat will be more for that substance.
C, details that help readers visualize the settings better. A wouldn't work because it doesn't help the setting, B doesn't help the setting either and D would only add more confusion so UT would have to be C by process of elimination.
Answer:
No
Explanation:
There is a famous theory by Kenneth Kitchen that has been used about this topic very widely, the theory itself is too hard to summarize with the limited character so I'll use a singular quote: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. In other words, just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there and vice versa. This theory basically goes off of hope that something is there just because initial signs point to it. The reason its used in arguments like this is because it basically justifies someone doing something irrational as taking away someone's individual rights for suspicion's they have neither confirmed nor denied kind of like Schrodinger's cat. But this is told from the catcallers perspective and not the victim itself, not only have you taken away their rights because you thought something , you didn't even have to prove any of your accusations. In other words its the land of the free, and here we have a court of lie where a person or persons are liable to meet these accusations in a court of their peers for a fair trial before anyone's rights can be revoked, this isn't a 'partriot' act, its a fear act. And fear is the degrader of the mind , and the plague of society.
