A student decides to dissolve crackers in their soup as fast as possible. They must first increase the surface area of the crackers. How could this be done? a. Break the crackers into pieces b. Pile the crackers on top of each other c. Wrap the crackers in plastic to keep them fresh d. Put crackers in the bottom of the bowl

The correct option is A ( Break the crackers into pieces.)

Explanation:

The rate of reaction between two substances can be affected by the following factors:

--> surface area of reacting substances

--> concentration

--> reaction mechanism

--> temperature

--> the presence of a catalyst and

--> pressure ( if gaseous)

Reagents in solution tend to react faster than reagents in solid form. This is because molecules are freer to move about and collide more effectively in solutions. For example, a lump of zinc will not react as fast as powdered zinc with dilute hydrochloric acid to produce hydrogen. This is the same with the reaction between the crackers and soup. To increase the reaction of the substances, the crackers needs to be broken into pieces(thus,increased surface area)

1. the question asks the most appropriate, which seems to rule out "all of the above." your choice appears to be the correct one.

2. the protocol described is good for identifying correlation, but not cause and effect. for cause/effect, you need to devise a protocol that will assign the treatment (or not) to groups that have essentially the same "demographics" with respect to all the other variables. your choice regarding control group seems appropriate. random assignment of treatment (choice d) may be appropriate also. (i think you can argue that b and d are just different descriptions of the same method.)

3. d will randomize the birds, but may not guarantee there are 10 in each group. e will do both, so seems the better choice.

comment on question 2

based on the problem statement, it seems clear that confident, attentive drivers are more likely to use daytime running lights. so, the protocol might need to be devised in such a way that the lights would be turned on or off without the driver's knowledge. (an attentive driver will figure it out.) assigning a confident, attentive driver to a group required to drive without running lights might mess with his/her confidence and attentiveness. you don't want your experiment to do that. (nor do you want the experiment to subject a driver to greater risk of accident as a consequence of driving without running lights.) experiments involving human safety are always problematic.

increased stability in the completion of fluorine's outer shell.