Arrange the following in order of increasing boiling point: rbf, co2, ch3oh, ch3br. explain your reasoning.

We can arrange the given compound in order of increasing boiling point as CO2 <CH3Br <CH3OH <RbF.

The compound with the highest boiling point is RbF, since it has the strongest intermolecular force.

CH3OH, CH3Br can doesn't posses strong intermolecular force compare to RbF, and they can form hydrogen bond.

CO2 can form weak dispersion force and it's a non polar compound and it posses the boiling point.

This is the temperature at whereby the vapor pressure of a liquid equals the pressure.

At this temperature, the liquid changes into a vapor and the weaker the force of attraction the lower the boiling point.

Learn more about boiling point at :

link

a basic solution is an aqueous solution containing more oh-ions than h+ions. in other words, it is an aqueous solution with a ph greater than 7. basic solutions contain ions, conduct electricity, turn red litmus paper blue, and feel slippery to the touch.

explanation:

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.