The author writes, "Gerardo Ceballos, a researcher at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico in Mexico City, acknowledged that the study is written in usually alarming tones for an academic research paper. ‘It wouldn’t be ethical right now not to speak in this strong language to call attention to the severity of the problem,’ he said."

1. What evidence in the article supports the claim that this is a severe problem?

first let us lay out the formula for potential

and kinetic energy:

pe = mgh

ke = (mv^2)/2

where: m=mass, v=velocity, g=gravitational

acceleration, h=height

calculating for mass using the known values of

pe:

340j = m (9.81 m/s^2) (50ft) (1m/3.28ft)

m = 2.27 kg

the law of conservation of energy states that

energy is neither created nor destroyed. therefore, the change in kinetic

energy from 50 ft to 35 ft would be equal to the change in potential energy

from 50 ft to 35 ft. however it would be opposite in signs since one is losing

while other is gaining.

ke(35ft) – ke(50ft) = - [ pe(35ft) – pe(50ft]

ke(50ft) = 0 since the brick is initially at rest

ke(35ft) = 340j - 2.27kg (9.81 m/s^2) (35ft)

(1m/3.28 ft)

ke(35ft)

= 102.38 j