3. What is the main difference between a physical change and a chemical change?
A. Physical changes alter the composition whereas chemical changes alter the
appearance of a substance.
B. Physical changes describe the appearance of a substance whereas chemical
changes describe qualities only observed with a reaction.
C. Physical changes describe qualities only observed with a reaction whereas
chemical changes describe the appearance of a substance.
D. Physical changes alter the appearance whereas chemical changes alter the
composition of a substance,

B and D could both be right as they are quit similar.

Consider two rods of the same length and diameter,

Increasing the diameter of one would change the expansion qualities of that rod even though there would be no chemical changes,

However, leaving the physical appearance of both rods the same while applying a reactive substance (acid or something) to one of the rods would not necessarily change the physical appearance of that rod but could make a considerable change in the  physical properties of that rod.

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:

when heated, the valance electrons increased their speed and transferred the heat from electron to electron.   i just took the test.