The modern model of the atom describes electrons in a little less specific detail than earlier models did. Why is it that being less sure about the placement of electrons in an atom is actually an improvement over earlier models?
A.)Electrons do not follow specific paths, so describing the area where an electron is likely to be is more scientifically
accurate,
B.)Electrons were thought to be negatively charged, but now scientists know that their charge depends on their energy
level.
C.)The modern model is based on mathematical equations, so the results become less clear when the decimals are
rounded.
D.)The position of electrons in atomic models has changed so much that it is better to have a less specific model than
to be wrong again.
lol

se

explanation:

a community that experiences major changes undergoes progress

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."