Answer:
most likely that (2) the replicated experiment was performed incorrectly.
Why, u ask? u dare question me:
1- The initial experiment invalidness cannot be proven.
2- <em><u>t</u></em><em><u>h</u></em><em><u>e</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>s</u></em><em><u>e</u></em><em><u>c</u></em><em><u>o</u></em><em><u>n</u></em><em><u>d</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>a</u></em><em><u>n</u></em><em><u>s</u></em><em><u>w</u></em><em><u>e</u></em><em><u>r</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>i</u></em><em><u>s</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>c</u></em><em><u>o</u></em><em><u>r</u></em><em><u>r</u></em><em><u>e</u></em><em><u>c</u></em><em><u>t</u></em>
3- Different labaratories does not effect the outcome, as long as the parameter and environment of the replicated experiment is the same as when the initial experiment was conducted.
4- Already knowing the data and errors would increase the precision of the replicated experiment.
5- Change in variables should still be in the objective (or purpose) of the experiment, thus, major difference in the outcome should not happen.
happy learning!
Answer:
Look at your periodic table
Explanation:
It tells you everything like Potasium 1 and 1 ox and 1 hydrogen
Answer:
(a) 
(b) Rubidium
Explanation:
Hello,
This titration is carried out by assuming that the volume of base doesn't have a significant change when the mass is added, thus, we state the following data a apply the down below formula to compute the molarity of the base solution:

Solving for the molarity of base we've got:

Now, we can compute the moles of the base as:

(a) Now, one divides the provided mass over the previously computed moles to get the molecular mass of the unknown base:

(b) Subtracting the atomic mass of oxygen and hydrogen, the metal's atomic mass turns out into:

So, that atomic mass dovetails to the Rubidium's atomic mass.
Best regards.