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.
Explanation:
Put the pan into a water-containing dish and mix well. Now use a strainer to transfer the solution into another jar. The salt should disappear in it.
And using a tube with a filtrate, transfer the salts that has sand into another bottle with a filtrate. Therefore the sand is split. Eventually, when all the water vaporizes and the salt stays in the bottle, leave the extra solvent and heat it.
Answer:
Explanation: Over the course of a year, areas near Earth’s equator receive more direct energy from the Sun than areas near Earth’s poles. Which of the following correctly describes one result of this heating pattern?
