Hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide are mixed together to form salt and water. during the reaction, the temperature of the solution increases. which of these best explains why this is considered to be a chemical change? no energy was destroyed. heat was given off. it involved liquids. new substances formed.

The option "New substances formed" best explains why this is considered a chemical change.

Explanation:

A chemical change is a process in which one or several substances, called reagents, undergo modification of their molecular structures and are transformed into other substances, called products.

On the other side, a neutralization reaction is one in which an acid (or an acid oxide) reacts with a base (or basic oxide). In the reaction a salt is formed and in most cases water is formed. A salt is an ionic compound formed by the union of ions and cations through ionic bonds.

So:

acid + base ⇒ salt + water

Neutralization reactions are generally exothermic, which means they release energy in the form of heat.

In this case, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide are mixed together to form salt and water.  Then it is a neutralization reaction, producing a chemical change that releases energy. In this way, during the reaction, the temperature of the solution increases.

So, the option "New substances formed" best explains why this is considered a chemical change.

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:

change tension