You are on your way to a party when the host asks you to pick up a bag of ice. At the grocery store you grab a 6-kg bag that was kept at a temperature of -4.4°C. When you get to the party, you find a large cooler to put the ice in. There is already 29 L (i. e., 29 kg) of water in the cooler at a temperature of 19°C. You toss the ice into the water and close the lid. The specific heat and latent heat of fusion for water are 4186 J/(kg⋅°C) and 3.34 × 105 J/kg, respectively. The specific heat of ice near its freezing point is 2000 J/(kg⋅°C).
Find the temperature, in degrees Celsius, of the water in the cooler after the party. Assume the ice maintains its temperature on the way to the party and the cooler is well insulated.

The final temperature of the content in the cooler = 1.70°C

Explanation:

Given

Mass of ice = 6 kg

Specific heat capacity of ice = 2000 J/kg.°C

Latent Heat of fusion = (3.34 × 10⁵) J/kg = 334000 J/kg

Specific heat capacity of water = 4186 J/kg°C

Initial Temperature of ice = -4.4°C

Mass of water in the cooler = 29 kg

Specific heat capacity of water = 4186 J/kg°C

Initial Temperature of the water in the cooler = 19°C

Let the final temperature of the water in cooler be T.

(Total Heat gained by the ice, to go from -4.4°C to 0°C, then melt, the rise in temperature to the final temperature) = (The heat lost by the water in the cooler)

Note that: No heat is lost to the cooler as it is well insulated and the ice remains at -4.4°C on the way to the party till it enters the cooler.

Heat gained by the ice by the ice, to go from -4.4°C to 0°C, then melt, the rise in temperature to the final temperature is given by

1) (Heat required for ice to go from -4.4°C to 0°C) = mCΔT = (6)(2000)[0-(-4.4)] = 12000(4.4) = 52,800 J

2) (Heat required for the ice to melt at constant temperature) = mL = (6)(334000) = 2,004,000 J

3) (Heat required for the newly-formed water from ice to move from 0°C to the final temperature T) = mCΔT = (6)(4186)(T - 0) = (25,116T) J

Summed together, this total heat gives

52,800 + 2,004,000 + 25,116T

= (2,056,800 + 25116T) J

(The heat lost by the water in the cooler) = mCΔT

= (29)(4186)(19 - T) = (2,306,486 - 121,394T) J

(Total Heat gained by the ice, to go from -4.4°C to 0°C, then melt, the rise in temperature to the final temperature) = (The heat lost by the water in the cooler)

Equating this two together

2,056,800 + 25116T = 2,306,486 - 121,394T

25,116T + 121,394T = 2,306,486 - 2,056,800

146,510T = 249,686

T = (249,686) ÷ (146,510) = 1.70°C

Hope this Helps!!!

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:

are there answer choices to this question? this seems like a question where you have options to choose from.