To identify a diatomic gas (X2X2), a researcher carried out the following experiment: She weighed an empty 4.0-LL bulb, then filled it with the gas at 2.00 atmatm and 30.0 ∘C ∘C and weighed it again. The difference in mass was 9.1 gg . Identify the gas.

N₂

Explanation:

Using ideal gas law, you can find moles of the gas:

PV = nRT

PV / RT = n

Where P is pressure (2.00atm); V is volume (4.0L), n are moles of gas; R is gas constant (0.082atmL/molK); and T is absolute temperature (30.0°C +273.15 = 303.15K)

Replacing:

2.00atm×4.0L / 0.082atmL/molK×303.15K = n

0.322 moles of gas = n

The difference in mass is equal to mass of the gas. Knowing both moles and mass of the gas, molecular mass of the gas is:

9.1g / 0.322mol = 28.3g/mol

As the gass is a diatomic gas, each atom weights 28.3/ 2 = 14.1g/mol and this is the mass of nitrogen atom. Thus, the diatomic gas is N₂

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.