you push a ball with a net force of 2 n and it accelerates. what happens if you exert 2 n of net force on an object that has 3 times the mass?


1. the object will accelerate the same amount as before because the mass does not affect the object’s acceleration.

2. the object will accelerate 1/3 as much because if you apply the same net force but increase the mass, the acceleration will decrease.

3. the object will not accelerate because now it is too heavy.

4. the object will accelerate 3 times as much because if you apply the same net force and increase the mass, the acceleration will increase.

The answer to your question is: number 2 is correct.

Explanation:

Formula

                     F   =  m  x  a

The formula shows that acceleration and mass and inversely proportional, then if the mass increases 3 times, then the acceleration must diminishes 3 times.

1. The object will accelerate the same amount as before because the mass does not affect the object’s acceleration. This option is incorrect, the acceleration must diminish.

2. The object will accelerate 1/3 as much because if you apply the same net force but increase the mass, the acceleration will decrease.  This option is correct, is what i describe above.

3. The object will not accelerate because now it is too heavy. this option is wrong, because the object will accelerate.

4. The object will accelerate 3 times as much because if you apply the same net force and increase the mass, the acceleration will increase. This option s incorrect, the acceleration will diminish not increase.

wanahton purified a portion of water with 900 grams of contaminants. each hour, a third of the contaminants was filtered out.

let g(n) be the amount of contaminants (in grams) that remained by the beginning of the nth hour. g is a sequence, what kind of sequence is it, arithmetic or geometric? then, write an explicit formula for the sequence, g(n)=

wanahton purified a portion of water with 900 grams of contaminants. each hour, a third of the contaminants was filtered out.

let g(n) be the amount of contaminants (in grams) that remained by the beginning of the nth hour. g is a sequence, what kind of sequence is it, arithmetic or geometric? then, write an explicit formula for the sequence, g(n)=

wanahton purified a portion of water with 900 grams of contaminants. each hour, a third of the contaminants was filtered out.

let g(n) be the amount of contaminants (in grams) that remained by the beginning of the nth hour. g is a sequence, what kind of sequence is it, arithmetic or geometric? then, write an explicit formula for the sequence, g(n)=

wanahton purified a portion of water with 900 grams of contaminants. each hour, a third of the contaminants was filtered out.

let g(n) be the amount of contaminants (in grams) that remained by the beginning of the nth hour. g is a sequence, what kind of sequence is it, arithmetic or geometric? then, write an explicit formula for the sequence, g(n)=

explanation:

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.