Astudent places four identical cells into four different liquids. cell description of liquid w saltier than the cell x less salty than the cell y equally as salty as the cell z pure water with no salts over time, which cell will look the smallest? cell w cell x cell y cell z

This description can be expressed as follows:

And,

From these expressions we are able to find out that the saltiest cell description is Y, while the less salty is X.

Now, salt is well known as a dehydrating agent. In a process called osmosis cells placed in a salty liquid environment lose water, how?

Well, cells have a semipermeable membrane, in which some substances can get inside. Cells also have water inside. If a cell is placed in a quite salty liquid environment, salt will make the water inside the cells to come out, drying the cell and diminishing its size.

So, in this case, according to the expressions above, Cell Y will look the smallest, while cell X will look the biggest.

If we pour pure water in each liquid, the salt concentration will change and each cell will begin to grow bigger, but the saltiest cell will still be smaller than the others with less salt concentration.

Finally, to answer the question: Y cell will look the smallest after this process.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

cancer risk hope this