Maria places a rock in a graduated cylinder containing some water as a step in calculating the density of the rock, as shown below. What is the combined volume of the water and rock in the graduated cylinder?
- A. 9 mL
- B. 26 mL
- C. 30 mL
- D. 15 mL
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
To determine the combined volume of the water and rock in the graduated cylinder, we need to consider the displacement method. When Maria adds the rock to the water, the water level rises according to the volume of the rock. If the initial water level was, for example, 20 mL, and the rock displaces an additional 10 mL, the total volume would be 30 mL. Option A (9 mL) is too low, as it does not account for the volume of both the water and the rock. Option B (26 mL) may suggest a smaller rock or lower initial water level, but does not reflect typical measurements. Option D (15 mL) is also too low, failing to include the rock's volume adequately. Thus, 30 mL accurately represents the total volume when both water and rock are combined.
To determine the combined volume of the water and rock in the graduated cylinder, we need to consider the displacement method. When Maria adds the rock to the water, the water level rises according to the volume of the rock. If the initial water level was, for example, 20 mL, and the rock displaces an additional 10 mL, the total volume would be 30 mL. Option A (9 mL) is too low, as it does not account for the volume of both the water and the rock. Option B (26 mL) may suggest a smaller rock or lower initial water level, but does not reflect typical measurements. Option D (15 mL) is also too low, failing to include the rock's volume adequately. Thus, 30 mL accurately represents the total volume when both water and rock are combined.
Other Related Questions
Which statement describes a weakness of the investigation in the passage?
- A. None of the hypotheses are directly related to the ice core data.
- B. The Greenland ice sheet is far away from the site of the explosion in Russia.
- C. Several of the hypotheses rely on unproven processes or estimated values.
- D. A few micrograms of ammonia is insufficient evidence for a conclusion.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C highlights a significant weakness, as relying on unproven processes or estimated values can lead to unreliable conclusions, undermining the investigation's credibility. Option A is incorrect because hypotheses can be related to data in broader contexts, even if not directly. Option B misrepresents the geographical relevance; distance alone does not invalidate the connection between the ice core data and the explosion. Option D, while suggesting a concern about evidence quantity, does not address the fundamental issue of reliance on unproven processes that can skew the investigation's outcomes.
Option C highlights a significant weakness, as relying on unproven processes or estimated values can lead to unreliable conclusions, undermining the investigation's credibility. Option A is incorrect because hypotheses can be related to data in broader contexts, even if not directly. Option B misrepresents the geographical relevance; distance alone does not invalidate the connection between the ice core data and the explosion. Option D, while suggesting a concern about evidence quantity, does not address the fundamental issue of reliance on unproven processes that can skew the investigation's outcomes.
A 60W light bulb used .48 kilowatt hours of electricity. How long was the light bulb on?
- A. 0.48 hours
- B. 28.8 hours
- C. 0.125 hours
- D. 8 hours
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
To determine how long the 60W light bulb was on, we first convert the energy used from kilowatt hours to watt hours: 0.48 kWh equals 480 watt hours. Using the formula: time (hours) = energy (watt hours) / power (watts), we calculate: 480 watt hours / 60 watts = 8 hours. Option A (0.48 hours) underestimates the time significantly. Option B (28.8 hours) incorrectly suggests the bulb was on much longer than the energy consumed allows. Option C (0.125 hours) miscalculates by assuming a much higher power consumption. Only option D accurately reflects the time the bulb was on based on the energy used.
To determine how long the 60W light bulb was on, we first convert the energy used from kilowatt hours to watt hours: 0.48 kWh equals 480 watt hours. Using the formula: time (hours) = energy (watt hours) / power (watts), we calculate: 480 watt hours / 60 watts = 8 hours. Option A (0.48 hours) underestimates the time significantly. Option B (28.8 hours) incorrectly suggests the bulb was on much longer than the energy consumed allows. Option C (0.125 hours) miscalculates by assuming a much higher power consumption. Only option D accurately reflects the time the bulb was on based on the energy used.
How do the results of Bateson's experiment affect the interpretation of Mendel's experimental results?
- A. Bateson's experimental results show that Mendel's conclusions were incorrect.
- B. Bateson's experimental results show that Mendel's conclusions were incomplete.
- C. Bateson's experiments resulted in different ratios of traits in the offspring, confirming Mendel's conclusion.
- D. Bateson's experiments studied different traits than Mendel's so Bateson's results could not challenge or support Mendel's conclusions.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Bateson's experimental results highlight that Mendel's conclusions, while groundbreaking, did not encompass all genetic variations and interactions. Mendel's work focused primarily on simple traits, but Bateson demonstrated that there are complexities in inheritance that Mendel did not address, indicating that his findings were incomplete. Option A is incorrect as Bateson did not disprove Mendel but rather expanded on his work. Option C misinterprets Bateson's findings; while they may align with Mendel's, they also reveal additional complexities rather than merely confirming his conclusions. Option D is misleading; although Bateson studied different traits, the implications of his findings still relate to Mendel’s conclusions, thereby challenging and enriching our understanding of genetics.
Bateson's experimental results highlight that Mendel's conclusions, while groundbreaking, did not encompass all genetic variations and interactions. Mendel's work focused primarily on simple traits, but Bateson demonstrated that there are complexities in inheritance that Mendel did not address, indicating that his findings were incomplete. Option A is incorrect as Bateson did not disprove Mendel but rather expanded on his work. Option C misinterprets Bateson's findings; while they may align with Mendel's, they also reveal additional complexities rather than merely confirming his conclusions. Option D is misleading; although Bateson studied different traits, the implications of his findings still relate to Mendel’s conclusions, thereby challenging and enriching our understanding of genetics.
Which statement from the passage refutes Lavoisier's idea that heat is a fluid that leaves a hot substance and travels to a colder substance?
- A. He also found the brass filings produced from the drilling process contained enough heat to boil water while retaining their weight.
- B. James Joule discovered that heat could be produced by moving a wire through a magnetic field.
- C. Lavoisier demonstrated that oxygen was required for combustion.
- D. Count Rumford observed that the process of boring out cannons from brass cylinders continuously produced heat.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Option A effectively refutes Lavoisier's notion of heat as a fluid by demonstrating that heat can be generated without the transfer of a fluid. The brass filings, despite retaining their weight, produced sufficient heat to boil water, indicating that heat can arise from mechanical processes rather than fluid movement. Option B, while highlighting Joule's discovery of heat production through motion, does not directly address Lavoisier's fluid concept. Option C focuses on combustion and oxygen's role, which is unrelated to the nature of heat itself. Option D describes an observation of heat generation during a mechanical process but does not emphasize the implications for Lavoisier's fluid theory as clearly as A does.
Option A effectively refutes Lavoisier's notion of heat as a fluid by demonstrating that heat can be generated without the transfer of a fluid. The brass filings, despite retaining their weight, produced sufficient heat to boil water, indicating that heat can arise from mechanical processes rather than fluid movement. Option B, while highlighting Joule's discovery of heat production through motion, does not directly address Lavoisier's fluid concept. Option C focuses on combustion and oxygen's role, which is unrelated to the nature of heat itself. Option D describes an observation of heat generation during a mechanical process but does not emphasize the implications for Lavoisier's fluid theory as clearly as A does.