A team of researchers is working on a project to make a new kind of carbonless fuel. During their experiment, there is an explosion tha the lab. While they are cleaning the debris, they discover three pieces of frozen metal. The researchers were excited to report that they
discovered a fuel that burns so clean it becomes cold. Which statement best explains why this scenario represents "bad" science?

The frozen metal was discovered through biased research practices.

The clean fuel experiment lacks controlled variables due to the explosion.

The experiment is replicable because the testing conditions are included.

The result of clean fuel production, the frozen metal, is not observable.

The correct answer is; "The frozen metal was discovered through biased research practices."

Scientific research is based on standard practices and not on personal bias hence they should not have taken a decision based on the frozen metals. Bias prevents a researcher from taking an objective look at experimental observations before arriving at a conclusion.

The greatest pitfall that must be avoided when conducting a scientific study is bias.

A bias is introduced when there is a disparity between observation and interpretation of data in a scientific study.

In the case of this question, the researchers already wanted to establish the possibility of obtaining a carbonless fuel. Their minds were so clouded with this bias that they forgot to thoroughly investigate the pieces of frozen metal thereby arriving at a lobe-sided, unscientific conclusion. This makes their work, "bad" science.

For more about bias in research, see:

it would be A The conditions of the experiment are not replicate able or repeatable.

Explanation:

A team of researchers is working on a project to make a new kind of carbonless fuel. During their experiment, there is an explosion that destroys the lab. While they are cleaning the debris, they discover three pieces of frozen metal. The researchers were excited to report that they had discovered a fuel that burns so clean it becomes cold. Other scientists attempt to make the carbonless fuel but are unsuccessful. Which statement best explains why this scenario represents "bad" science?

The conditions of the experiment are not replicable or repeatable.

The process of making clean fuel is known due to the explosion.

The frozen metal was discovered through biased research practices.

The result of clean fuel production, the frozen metal, is not observable.

n2(g) + 3h2-> 2nh3(g)   this is the balanced equation

note the mole ratio between n2, h2 and nh3.   it is 1 : 3 : 2   this will be important.

moles n2 present = 28.0 g n2 x 1 mole n2/28 g = 1 mole n2 present

moles h2 present = 25.0 g h2 x 1 mole h2/2 g = 12.5 moles h2 present

based on mole ratio, n2 is limiting in this situation because there is more than enough h2 but not enough n2.

moles nh3 that can be produced = 1 mole n2 x 2 moles nh3/mole n2 = 2 moles nh3 can be produced

grams of nh3 that can be produced = 2 moles nh3 x 17 g/mole = 34 grams of nh3 can be produced

note:   the key to this problem is recognizing that n2 is limiting, and therefore limits how much nh3 can be produced.

answer : a model is often used to explain and make things easier to understand when any scientific topic needs to be demonstrated and explained.

as in this case where a scientist wants to use a model to present the results of his detailed scientific investigation. he should do it as it will him to make the audience understand the concept in a much better way. also, it can be changed according to new scientific understandings.