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.
Materials<span> and their </span>properties<span>: </span>compounds like<span> sodium chloride - an interactive educational resource for 11 to 14 year olds. ... Elements are substances (</span>like<span> hydrogen and oxygen) that can't be split into simpler substances. ... For </span>each<span> statement, decide whether it describes a mixture or a </span>compound<span> and check the box.</span>
<span>0.453 moles O2 is the solution</span>
