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.
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.
Other Related Questions
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.
Scientists can indirectly observe temperatures and insolation (the Intensity or direct solar radiation) in the distant past by measuring oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores collected from polar ice. The graph presents data for the period from what ta200.000 years ago. What time period in the graph shows the greatest correlation between Milankovitch cycles and climate?
- A. 140,000-160,000 years ago
- B. 120,000-140,000 years ago
- C. 100,000-120,000 years ago
- D. 160,000-180,000 years ago
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The time period from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago exhibits the greatest correlation between Milankovitch cycles and climate, as evidenced by significant fluctuations in temperature and insolation reflected in the oxygen isotope ratios. This interval aligns closely with the timing of glacial and interglacial periods influenced by Earth's orbital changes. Options A and B show notable climate changes, but they do not align as strongly with Milankovitch cycles, indicating less correlation. Option D, while part of the broader glacial cycle, reveals less pronounced temperature shifts, making it less relevant to the question of correlation.
The time period from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago exhibits the greatest correlation between Milankovitch cycles and climate, as evidenced by significant fluctuations in temperature and insolation reflected in the oxygen isotope ratios. This interval aligns closely with the timing of glacial and interglacial periods influenced by Earth's orbital changes. Options A and B show notable climate changes, but they do not align as strongly with Milankovitch cycles, indicating less correlation. Option D, while part of the broader glacial cycle, reveals less pronounced temperature shifts, making it less relevant to the question of correlation.
A scientist studying solubility increased the temperature of a constant volume of water and measured the amount of sugar that dissolved into solution... Which of the following describes the relationship between the independent and dependent variables?
- A. As the amount of dissolved sugar increased, the temperature of the water decreased.
- B. As the water temperature increased, the amount of dissolved sugar increased.
- C. As the amount of dissolved sugar increased, the amount of water remained constant.
- D. As the water temperature increased, the amount of water decreased.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Option B accurately describes the relationship between the independent variable (temperature of the water) and the dependent variable (amount of dissolved sugar). As temperature rises, solubility typically increases, allowing more sugar to dissolve. Option A incorrectly suggests an inverse relationship; higher temperatures do not cause the amount of dissolved sugar to decrease. Option C, while true, does not address the relationship between the two variables in question. Option D incorrectly implies that increasing temperature leads to a decrease in water volume, which is not relevant in this context.
Option B accurately describes the relationship between the independent variable (temperature of the water) and the dependent variable (amount of dissolved sugar). As temperature rises, solubility typically increases, allowing more sugar to dissolve. Option A incorrectly suggests an inverse relationship; higher temperatures do not cause the amount of dissolved sugar to decrease. Option C, while true, does not address the relationship between the two variables in question. Option D incorrectly implies that increasing temperature leads to a decrease in water volume, which is not relevant in this context.
What is the relationship between the kinetic energy of the feather and of the hammer just before they hit the surface of the Moon?
- A. The hammer has more kinetic energy than the feather because it has a greater mass.
- B. Both objects have the same kinetic energy because they fell with the same velocity.
- C. The hammer has more kinetic energy than the feather because it will accelerate faster than the feather.
- D. Both objects have the same kinetic energy because gravity pulls on both objects equally.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The hammer possesses more kinetic energy than the feather due to its greater mass, as kinetic energy is calculated using the formula KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity². While both objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, their velocities are equal, but the hammer’s larger mass results in higher kinetic energy. Option B is incorrect because, although they have the same velocity, kinetic energy also depends on mass. Option C misrepresents the situation; both objects accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum. Option D is misleading; while gravity affects both equally, it does not determine kinetic energy, which also requires consideration of mass.
The hammer possesses more kinetic energy than the feather due to its greater mass, as kinetic energy is calculated using the formula KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity². While both objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, their velocities are equal, but the hammer’s larger mass results in higher kinetic energy. Option B is incorrect because, although they have the same velocity, kinetic energy also depends on mass. Option C misrepresents the situation; both objects accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum. Option D is misleading; while gravity affects both equally, it does not determine kinetic energy, which also requires consideration of mass.