Which of the following statements would be accepted as a valid criticism of
the big bang theory in scientific circles?

There are three significant problems:

The Flatness Problem:

WMAP has determined the geometry of the universe to be nearly flat. However, under Big Bang cosmology, curvature grows with time. A universe as flat as we see it today would require an extreme fine-tuning of conditions in the past, which would be an unbelievable coincidence.

The Horizon Problem:

Distant regions of space in opposite directions of the sky are so far apart that, assuming standard Big Bang expansion, they could never have been in causal contact with each other. This is because the light travel time between them exceeds the age of the universe. Yet the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background temperature tells us that these regions must have been in contact with each other in the past.

The Monopole Problem:

Big Bang cosmology predicts that a very large number of heavy, stable "magnetic monopoles" should have been produced in the early universe. However, magnetic monopoles have never been observed, so if they exist at all, they are much more rare than the Big Bang theory predicts.

the reaction mixture contains some ammonia, plus a lot of unreacted nitrogen and hydrogen. the mixture is cooled and compressed, causing the ammonia gas to condense into a liquid. the liquefied ammonia is separated and removed. the unreacted nitrogen and hydrogen are then recycled back into the reactor .

im pretty sure its b