_al + _o2  _al2o3

which sequence of coefficients should be placed in the blanks to balance this equation

part 1: the half-life of the element is 22 years.

part 2: it will take 132.02 year for the sample to decay from 308.0 g to 4.8125 g.

explanation:

part 1: there are two ways to determine the half life time.

first way: the half life time can be determined directly from its definition as it is the time required for the sample to decay to its half concentration.

from the data the initial concentration was 45.0 g and decayed to its half value (22.5 g) in 22.0 years.

second way: the radio active decay is considered first order reaction so we can use the laws of first order reactions.

k = (1/t) ln (a/a-x), where k is the rate constant of the reaction,

t is the time of the reaction

a is the initial concentration of the reactant

a-x is the remaining concentration at time (t)

a = 45.0 g the initial concentration at t = 0 year.

at t = 22 year, a-x = 22.5 g

then k = (1/22 year) ln (45.0 g/ 22.5 g) = 0.0315 year-1.

the half-life time (t1/2) = ln 2/ k = 0.693/ k =0.693/ 0.0315 = 22 years.

part 2:

using the same law k = (1/t) ln (a/a-x),

using the given data; a = 308.0 g and a-x = 4.8125 g and the calculated k from the part 1 (k = 0.0315 year-1)

t = (1/k) ln (a/a-x) = (1/0.0315) ln (308.0/ 4.8125) = 132.02 years

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.