Select the correct answer.
a scientist compares two samples of white powder. one powder was present at the beginning of an experiment. the other powder was present at the end. she wants to determine whether a chemical reaction has occurred. she finds that neither sample bubbles or dissolves in water. she measures the mass and volume of the solids. sample one has a volume of 45 cm3 and a mass of 0.5 g. sample two has a volume of 65 cm3 and a mass of 1.3 g. what should the scientist conclude?
a.
the samples have the same color, so no chemical reaction has occurred.
b.
the two samples do not react with water, so no chemical reaction has occurred.
c.
the densities of the samples are different, so a chemical reaction has occurred.
d.
the densities of the samples are the same, so no chemical reaction has occurred.
e.
the densities of the samples are different, so no chemical reaction has occurred

C) The densities of the samples are different, so a chemical reaction has occurred.

Explanation:

Given,

The volume of the sample A, v = 45 cm³

The mass of the sample A, m = 0.5 g

The volume of the sample B, v = 65 cm³

The mass of the sample B, m = 1.3 g

To find the whether there is a chemical reaction has occurred, first to examine the physical properties of the samples.

The color of the samples remains the same. This will not lead to valid result. The scientist need to examine further.

Next level is to check the densities of the substance.

The density of the Sample A

                                    ρₐ = 0.5/45

                                        = 0.011 g/cm³

The density of sample B

                                      ρₓ = 1.3/65

                                          = 0.02 g/cm³

On analyzing the densities of the samples, sample A is less denser than sample B.

Hence, a chemical reaction has occurred.

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:

i think they are all correct

explanation:

they seem good