Each iron atom has a mass of about 9 x 1023 grams. Even a small grain of iron has an incredible number of atoms in. it--about 1 x 1018 atoms in one grain. Which of these is most similar to the number of atoms in a grain of iron?

A) The number of atoms in a grain of iron is most similar to the number of meters between Earth and Vega.

The options attached to the question are missing, but out of the numbers presented in the options, 10¹⁷ is closest to 10¹⁸.

B) The mass of a grain of iron is approximately (9 × 10⁻⁵) g

Explanation:

The options attached to the question are missing, after searching online, the image of the question was obtained, but it won't be attached to this solution in order not to violate the community guidelines and lead to deletion of answer.

But, out of the numbers presented in the options, 10¹⁷ is closest to 10¹⁸, hence, the number of atoms in a grain of iron is most similar to the number of meters between Earth and Vega.

The second part of the question asks for the approximate mass of a grain of iron.

1 atom of iron has a mass of (9 × 10⁻²³) g

1 grain of iron has about (1 × 10¹⁸) atoms of iron.

So, the mass of a grain of iron = (9 × 10⁻²³) × (1 × 10¹⁸) = (9 × 10⁻⁵) g

Hope this Helps!!!

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.