In 1908, a huge explosion known as the Tunguska Event flattened trees for miles across a remote area of Russia. Scientists now think an asteroid or a comet entered Earth's atmosphere, causing the explosion. Ice core samples from an ice sheet in Greenland reveal signs of this enormous explosion: deposits of ammonia equal to 5 micrograms per square meter. But how exactly did these telltale molecules form?
• Hypothesis 1: The Tunguska explosion started forest fires, known to produce ammonia. Data indicates that such fires would have deposited an amount of ammonia over the Northern Hemisphere equaling 0.1 micrograms per square meter.
• Hypothesis 2: Up to 1% of the object's mass might have been ammonia, and this ammonia might have spread over the Northern Hemisphere. Approximately 0.00005 micrograms of ammonia per square meter are predicted by this hypothesis.
• Hypothesis 3: Since many compounds form in the presence of high heat, the ammonia could
have been produced as the falling object heated the atmosphere. However, heat alone is not
sufficient to cause the formation of ammonia.
• Hypothesis 4: As it passed through the atmosphere, the object pushed air in front of it at high pressure. Nitrogen and hydrogen combine to form ammonia under similar pressure. Considering the amount of hydrogen expected in a comet and the available nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere, approximately 5 micrograms of ammonia per square meter would have been deposited under this hypothesis.
Scientists have estimated the mass of the object that caused the Tunguska Event at 5 x 10^12 kilograms (kg). If the object was a comet in which 1% of total mass was ammonia, how much ammonia did the comet contain? kg
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: 5x10^10
To find the mass of ammonia in the comet, we calculate 1% of the total mass (5 x 10^12 kg). This is done by multiplying the total mass by 0.01: 5 x 10^12 kg × 0.01 = 5 x 10^10 kg. This calculation confirms that the comet contained 5 x 10^10 kg of ammonia. Other options may result from incorrect calculations, such as misunderstanding the percentage or misapplying the multiplication. For instance, using 0.1 instead of 0.01 would yield an answer ten times larger, while failing to convert the percentage to a decimal would also lead to an incorrect figure.
To find the mass of ammonia in the comet, we calculate 1% of the total mass (5 x 10^12 kg). This is done by multiplying the total mass by 0.01: 5 x 10^12 kg × 0.01 = 5 x 10^10 kg. This calculation confirms that the comet contained 5 x 10^10 kg of ammonia. Other options may result from incorrect calculations, such as misunderstanding the percentage or misapplying the multiplication. For instance, using 0.1 instead of 0.01 would yield an answer ten times larger, while failing to convert the percentage to a decimal would also lead to an incorrect figure.
Other Related Questions
Which hypothesis was Dilger testing in his experiment?
- A. If hybrid offspring have a mixture of behaviors, then the species are within the same genus.
- B. If a hybrid offspring carries nesting material in its beak, then it is more closely related to modern lovebirds.
- C. If behavior in lovebirds is genetic, then a hybrid offspring will display a mixture of behaviors.
- D. If lovebird species can interbreed, then a hybrid offspring will have a mixture of behaviors.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Dilger aimed to investigate the genetic basis of behavior in lovebirds, specifically focusing on whether hybrid offspring exhibit a blend of behaviors from their parent species. Option C accurately reflects this hypothesis, linking genetic inheritance to behavioral traits in hybrids. Option A incorrectly connects hybrid behavior to taxonomic classification, which is not the primary focus of Dilger’s study. Option B suggests a direct relationship between nesting material behavior and modern lovebirds, overlooking the broader genetic implications. Option D, while related to interbreeding, does not emphasize the genetic aspect of behavior, which is central to Dilger's hypothesis.
Dilger aimed to investigate the genetic basis of behavior in lovebirds, specifically focusing on whether hybrid offspring exhibit a blend of behaviors from their parent species. Option C accurately reflects this hypothesis, linking genetic inheritance to behavioral traits in hybrids. Option A incorrectly connects hybrid behavior to taxonomic classification, which is not the primary focus of Dilger’s study. Option B suggests a direct relationship between nesting material behavior and modern lovebirds, overlooking the broader genetic implications. Option D, while related to interbreeding, does not emphasize the genetic aspect of behavior, which is central to Dilger's hypothesis.
If these results correctly predict the performance of this kneepad design, what is the probability that one of the kneepads will require a force of 145 N or greater to cause failure?
- A. 53%
- B. 22%
- C. 75%
- D. 25%
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
To determine the probability of a kneepad requiring a force of 145 N or greater to cause failure, we analyze the data provided. The correct option, 25%, indicates that one-fourth of the kneepads are expected to fail under this force, aligning with statistical predictions for this design. Option A (53%) overestimates the likelihood, suggesting more than half will fail, which is not supported by the data. Option B (22%) underestimates the probability, indicating fewer kneepads will fail than expected. Option C (75%) is excessively high, implying a significant majority would fail, which contradicts the predicted performance. Thus, 25% accurately reflects the failure rate at this force threshold.
To determine the probability of a kneepad requiring a force of 145 N or greater to cause failure, we analyze the data provided. The correct option, 25%, indicates that one-fourth of the kneepads are expected to fail under this force, aligning with statistical predictions for this design. Option A (53%) overestimates the likelihood, suggesting more than half will fail, which is not supported by the data. Option B (22%) underestimates the probability, indicating fewer kneepads will fail than expected. Option C (75%) is excessively high, implying a significant majority would fail, which contradicts the predicted performance. Thus, 25% accurately reflects the failure rate at this force threshold.
Which statement describes one feature of the Rutherford-Bohr atom model that the Thomson model does not share?
- A. The Rutherford-Bohr model identifies different elements by the numbers of particles present.
- B. The Rutherford-Bohr model maintains the observed neutral charge of atoms.
- C. The Rutherford-Bohr model correctly describes the types of particles in the atom.
- D. The Rutherford-Bohr model restricts the positive charge of the atom to the nucleus.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
The Rutherford-Bohr model uniquely restricts the atom's positive charge to the nucleus, a significant advancement over the Thomson model, which depicts a diffuse positive charge throughout the atom. Option A is incorrect as both models can identify elements based on particle numbers, but the Rutherford-Bohr model adds more detail about electron arrangements. Option B is misleading; both models account for atomic neutrality, but the Rutherford-Bohr model provides a clearer structure. Option C is also inaccurate; while the Rutherford-Bohr model describes particles more accurately, it does not fundamentally change the types of particles present compared to Thomson's model.
The Rutherford-Bohr model uniquely restricts the atom's positive charge to the nucleus, a significant advancement over the Thomson model, which depicts a diffuse positive charge throughout the atom. Option A is incorrect as both models can identify elements based on particle numbers, but the Rutherford-Bohr model adds more detail about electron arrangements. Option B is misleading; both models account for atomic neutrality, but the Rutherford-Bohr model provides a clearer structure. Option C is also inaccurate; while the Rutherford-Bohr model describes particles more accurately, it does not fundamentally change the types of particles present compared to Thomson's model.
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.