Question 22 (essay worth 3 points) (02.01 hc) a prediction of the theory of plate tectonics is that new volcanoes can form at the boundary of two plates as magma seeps between them. to test this hypothesis, a scientist makes a map of existing volcanoes along a tectonic plate and measures the number of new volcanoes that appear over a decade. what would be the expected result of the experiment? how would you interpret the results if the scientist observes no new volcanic activity?

What would be the expected result of the experiment?

For the drawing of the map part, the scientific will find that effectively, a very large number of volcanoes are located near the meeting points of tectonic plates. The volcanoes that aren't now at the edge of the plate were most probably at the moment of their formation, and were moved away by the movement of the plate.

But I doubt the scientist would be able to identify many new volcanoes, because the creation of a volcano isn't something happening overnight.

How would you interpret the results if the scientist observes no new volcanic activity?

I would say that does NOT invalidate the theory because the observation period is extremely short.  10 years is an insignificant amount of time geologically speaking... the study would have to be conducted over at least 1,000 years to maybe have some results at all.   Just imagine how many volcanoes there would be if a new one was created every 10 years along the side of a tectonic plate.

1. (1.2kw)x(15/60hours) = .3kwh --> a

2. (5kw)x(90/60hours)x(8cents/kwh) = $0.60 --> d

3. microwave --> 1200 watts = (1.2kw)x(6/60hours) = .12kwh

coffee-maker --> 900 watts = (.9kw)x(10/60hours) = .15kwh

therefore, it requires more energy for the coffee-maker to do the same amount of work.

so the answer is a.

what is the statement?