Question 3
a compound is the chemical bonding of a two or more solutions b two or more mixtures c two or more elements
question 4 which item is a mixture? a copper b table salt c carbon d air question 5
a sample of matter that contains only one kind of atom would be classified as a a homogeneous mixture b an element c a heterogeneous mixture d a compound
question 6
which action will make a solid solute dissolve more slowly in a liquid solvent? a decreasing the solvent’s temperature b stirring the solution c crushing the solute into small pieces question 7
a chemical change is required to separate the components of a a heterogeneous mixture b compound c homogeneous mixture question 8
solutions and heterogeneous mixtures have a parts that are chemically bonded to one another b parts that are physically mixed c individual parts that can be seen without a microscope
question 9
matter that is always composed of the same combination of atoms is a a solution b substance c mixture question 10
adding more solute to a solution changes the a polarity of the solute molecules b solubility of the solute c concentration of the solution
question 11
saturated is a term that is used to describe a polarity b ph. c solubility d concentration question 12
evaporation, a physical change, could be used to separate the components of a(n) a substance b mixture c element d compound
question 13
which phrase describes the parts of a solution but not the parts of a heterogeneous mixture? a evenly mixed b easily visible with the unaided eye c always a single type of atom d chemically bonded question 14
which item could be separated into its component parts only by using a chemical change? a granite b air c table salt d salt water

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

ok

explanation: