An empty glass beaker has a mass of 103 g. When filled with water, it has a total mass of 361g. When filled with cooking oil, it has a total mass of 351 g.
The density of water is 1.00 gcm–3.
What is the density of the cooking oil?

0.96 gcm¯³

Explanation:

From the question given above, the following data were obtained:

Mass of empty beaker = 103 g

Mass of beaker + water = 361 g

Mass of beaker + oil = 351 g

Density of water = 1 gcm¯³

Density of cooking oil =?

Next, we shall determine the mass of water. This can be obtained as follow:

Mass of empty beaker = 103 g

Mass of beaker + water = 361 g

Mass of water =?

Mass of water = (Mass of beaker + water) – (Mass of empty beaker)

Mass of water = 361 – 103

Mass of water = 258 g

Next, we shall determine the volume of the beaker. This can be obtained by calculating the volume of water in the beaker.

Density of water = 1 gcm¯³

Mass of water = 258 g

Volume of water =?

Density = mass /volume

1 = 258 / volume

Cross multiply

1 × volume = 258

Volume of water = 258 cm³

Thus the volume of the beaker is 258 cm³.

Next, we shall determine the mass of the cooking oil. This can be obtained as follow:

Mass of empty beaker = 103 g

Mass of beaker + oil = 351 g

Mass of cooking oil =?

Mass of cooking oil = (Mass of beaker + oil) – (Mass of empty beaker)

Mass of cooking oil = 351 – 103

Mass of cooking oil = 248 g

Finally, we shall determine the density of the cooking oil. This can be obtained as follow:

Mass of cooking oil = 248 g

Volume of the beaker = 258 cm³

Density of cooking oil =?

Density = mass / volume

Density = 248 / 258

Density of cooking oil = 0.96 gcm¯³

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: