contestada

Henry mixed salt and water together in a cup until he observed a clear solution. He measured the mass of the solution. Then he placed the cup outside for several sunny days during the summer. After a week, he observed that only solid salt remained in the cup and the mass had decreased. Henry concluded that a physical and chemical change occurred in this investigation.

Which statements correctly defend or dispute his conclusion?

1- He is correct. Dissolving salt in water is a physical change, but evaporating the water is a chemical change. Formation of a solid is evidence that a chemical change occurred.
He is correct. Evaporation is a physical change, but dissolving salt in water is a chemical change. The change in mass is evidence that a chemical change occurred.


2- He is incorrect. Dissolving salt in water and evaporation of the water are both physical changes. The reappearance of salt is evidence that the change was reversible by a physical change, so it could not be a chemical change.


3- He is incorrect. Dissolving salt in water and evaporation of the water are both chemical changes. The reappearance of salt is evidence that the change was reversible by a chemical change, so it could not be a physical change.

Respuesta :

kevinDb2025

Answer: Henry mixed salt and water together in a cup until he observed a clear solution. He measured the mass of the solution. Then he placed the cup outside for several sunny days during the summer. After a week, he observed that only solid salt remained in the cup and the mass had decreased. Henry concluded that a physical and chemical change occurred in this investigation.

Which statements correctly defend or dispute his conclusion?

He is correct. Dissolving salt in water is a physical change, but evaporating the water is a chemical change. Formation of a solid is evidence that a chemical change occurred.

He is correct. Evaporation is a physical change, but dissolving salt in water is a chemical change. The change in mass is evidence that a chemical change occurred.

He is incorrect. Dissolving salt in water and evaporation of the water are both physical changes. The reappearance of salt is evidence that the change was reversible by a physical change, so it could not be a chemical change.

He is incorrect. Dissolving salt in water and evaporation of the water are both chemical changes. The reappearance of salt is evidence that the change was reversible by a chemical change, so it could not be a physical change.

Explanation:               its C

your welcome

pstnonsonjoku

He is incorrect. Dissolving salt in water and evaporation of the water are both physical changes. The reappearance of salt is evidence that the change was reversible by a physical change, so it could not be a chemical change.

Let us familiarize ourselves again with the meaning of the terms physical change and chemical change.

Physical change is a kind of change that does not affect the composition of a material. It is easily reversible and heat is neither absorbed nor evolved in the process. No new substance is formed in a physical change.

In a chemical change, new substances are formed. Heat may be evolved or absorbed and the composition of substances are changed in the process. It is not easily reversible.

Let us go back to Henry's experiment with these points in our minds. We can see the following from his report.

  • Salt dissolved in water to give one phase
  • The water was evaporated to yield the pure salt again

The fact that salt and water formed a single phase does not mean that they reacted chemically. It only means that the both substances formed a homogeneous mixture.

This is confirmed by the fact that it was easy to separate the components of the mixture by evaporation - a simple physical method.

When a chemical change occurs, the products formed can not be separated by simple physical methods.

Hence, Henry's conclusion was incorrect.

Learn more: https://brainly.com/question/6284546

Otras preguntas