Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
Kalani and lael are students who have been comparing the total kinetic energy of an iceberg to an ice cube
Kalani’s Argument: My claim is that an iceberg has more total kinetic energy (thermal energy) than an ice cube. This is because even though an iceberg is about the same temperature as an ice cube, it is also much larger, so it is made of a lot more molecules. For this reason, an iceberg will have more total kinetic energy (thermal energy) than an ice cube.
Lael's Argument: An iceberg has more total kinetic energy (thermal energy) than an ice cube because it is larger and made of more molecules. This matters because molecules move, and moving things have kinetic energy, so each molecule adds its kinetic energy to the total. Since the iceberg and the ice cube are around the same temperature, the fact that the iceberg has extra molecules means that it will have more total kinetic energy (thermal energy).
Which argument is more convincing?
Answer:
Kalani's argument is more convincing.
Explanation:
Lael says that the fact that Icebrg has extra molecules means that it has greater kinetic energy and this is not true, since the kinetic energy is greater in bodies and objects that have greater speed. In addition, speed increases as a body has greater mass. In this case, we can consider Kalani's argument as more convincing, since she related the kinetic energy to the mass of the iceberg.
D is the answer I thinking
