What is the first step to solve the absolute value 3|x+5|-4=11

Absolute Values and Compound Inequalities

Compound Inequalities and Absolute Value Equations

Compound and absolute value inequalities

Covalent Molecules and Compounds Just as an atom is the simplest unit that has the fundamental chemical properties of an element, a molecule is the simplest unit that has the fundamental chemical properties of a covalent compound. Some pure elements exist as covalent molecules. Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the halogens occur naturally as the diatomic (“two atoms”) molecules H2, N2, O2, F2, Cl2, Br2, and I2 (part (a) in Figure 3.1.1). Similarly, a few pure elements exist as polyatomic (“many atoms”) molecules, such as elemental phosphorus and sulfur, which occur as P4 and S8 (part (b) in Figure 3.1.1). Each covalent compound is represented by a molecular formula, which gives the atomic symbol for each component element, in a prescribed order, accompanied by a subscript indicating the number of atoms of that element in the molecule. The subscript is written only if the number of atoms is greater than 1. For example, water, with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule, is written as H2O. Similarly, carbon dioxide, which contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms in each molecule, is written as CO2. Covalent compounds that predominantly contain carbon and hydrogen are called organic compounds. The convention for representing the formulas of organic compounds is to write carbon first, followed by hydrogen and then any other elements in alphabetical order (e.g., CH4O is methyl alcohol, a fuel). Compounds that consist primarily of elements other than carbon and hydrogen are called inorganic compounds; they include both covalent and ionic compounds. In inorganic compounds, the component elements are listed beginning with the one farthest to the left in the periodic table, as in CO2 or SF6. Those in the same group are listed beginning with the lower element and working up, as in ClF. By convention, however, when an inorganic compound contains both hydrogen and an element from groups 13–15, hydrogen is usually listed last in the formula. Examples are ammonia (NH3) and silane (SiH4). Compounds such as water, whose compositions were established long before this convention was adopted, are always written with hydrogen first: Water is always written as H2O, not OH2. The conventions for inorganic acids, such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), are described elswhere. Note! For organic compounds: write C first, then H, and then the other elements in alphabetical order. For molecular inorganic compounds: start with the element at far left in the periodic table; list elements in same group beginning with the lower element and working up. Write the molecular formula of each compound. a. The phosphorus-sulfur compound that is responsible for the ignition of so-called strike anywhere matches has 4 phosphorus atoms and 3 sulfur atoms per molecule. b. Ethyl alcohol, the alcohol of alcoholic beverages, has 1 oxygen atom, 2 carbon atoms, and 6 hydrogen atoms per molecule. c. Freon-11, once widely used in automobile air conditioners and implicated in damage to the ozone layer, has 1 carbon atom, 3 chlorine atoms, and 1 fluorine atom per molecule. Solution: a. • A The molecule has 4 phosphorus atoms and 3 sulfur atoms. Because the compound does not contain mostly carbon and hydrogen, it is inorganic. • B Phosphorus is in group 15, and sulfur is in group 16. Because phosphorus is to the left of sulfur, it is written first. • C Writing the number of each kind of atom as a right-hand subscript gives P4S3 as the molecular formula. b. • A Ethyl alcohol contains predominantly carbon and hydrogen, so it is an organic compound. • B The formula for an organic compound is written with the number of carbon atoms first, the number of hydrogen atoms next, and the other atoms in alphabetical order: CHO. • C Adding subscripts gives the molecular formula C2H6O. c. • A Freon-11 contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine. It can be viewed as either an inorganic compound or an organic compound (in which fluorine has replaced hydrogen). The formula for Freon-11 can therefore be written using either of the two conventions. • B According to the convention for inorganic compounds, carbon is written first because it is farther left in the periodic table. Fluorine and chlorine are in the same group, so they are listed beginning with the lower element and working up: CClF. Adding subscripts gives the molecular formula CCl3F. • C We obtain the same formula for Freon-11 using the convention for organic compounds. The number of carbon atoms is written first, followed by the number of hydrogen atoms (zero) and then the other elements in alphabetical order, also giving CCl3F. Write the molecular formula for each compound. a. Nitrous oxide, also called “laughing gas,” has 2 nitrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom per molecule. Nitrous oxide is used as a mild anesthetic for minor surgery and as the propellant in cans of whipped cream. b. Sucrose, also known as cane sugar, has 12 carbon atoms, 11 oxygen atoms, and 22 hydrogen atoms. c. Sulfur hexafluoride, a gas used to pressurize “unpressurized” tennis balls and as a coolant in nuclear reactors, has 6 fluorine atoms and 1 sulfur atom per molecule. Answer: a. N2O b. C12H22O11 c. SF6. Ionic Compounds The substances described in the preceding discussion are composed of molecules that are electrically neutral; that is, the number of positively-charged protons in the nucleus is equal to the number of negatively-charged electrons. In contrast, ions are atoms or assemblies of atoms that have a net electrical charge. Ions that contain fewer electrons than protons have a net positive charge and are called cations. Conversely, ions that contain more electrons than protons have a net negative charge and are called anions. Ionic compounds contain both cations and anions in a ratio that results in no net electrical charge. Note! Ionic compounds contain both cations and anions in a ratio that results in zero electrical charge.An ionic compound that contains only two elements, one present as a cation and one as an anion, is called a binary ionic compound. One example is MgCl2, a coagulant used in the preparation of tofu from soybeans. For binary ionic compounds, the subscripts in the empirical formula can also be obtained by crossing charges: use the absolute value of the charge on one ion as the subscript for the other ion. This method is shown schematically as follows: Crossing charges. One method for obtaining subscripts in the empirical formula is by crossing charges. When crossing charges, it is sometimes necessary to reduce the subscripts to their simplest ratio to write the empirical formula. Consider, for example, the compound formed by Mg2+ and O2−. Using the absolute values of the charges on the ions as subscripts gives the formula Mg2O2:Polyatomic Ions Polyatomic ions are groups of atoms that bear net electrical charges, although the atoms in a polyatomic ion are held together by the same covalent bonds that hold atoms together in molecules. Just as there are many more kinds of molecules than simple elements, there are many more kinds of polyatomic ions than monatomic ions. Two examples of polyatomic cations are the ammonium (NH4+) and the methylammonium (CH3NH3+) ions. P. The method used to predict the empirical formulas for ionic compounds that contain monatomic ions can also be used for compounds that contain polyatomic ions. The overall charge on the cations must balance the overall charge on the anions in the formula unit. Thus, K+ and NO3− ions combine in a 1:1 ratio to form KNO3 (potassium nitrate or saltpeter), a major ingredient in black gunpowder. Similarly, Ca2+ and SO42− form CaSO4 (calcium sulfate), which combines with varying amounts of water to form gypsum and plaster of Paris. The polyatomic ions NH4+ and NO3− form NH4NO3 (ammonium nitrate), a widely used fertilizer and, in the wrong hands, an explosive. One example of a compound in which the ions have charges of different magnitudes is calcium phosphate, which is composed of Ca2+ and PO43− ions; it is a major component of bones. The compound is electrically neutral because the ions combine in a ratio of three Ca2+ ions [3(+2) = +6] for every two ions [2(−3) = −6], giving an empirical formula of Ca3(PO4)2; the parentheses around PO4 in the empirical formula indicate that it is a polyatomic ion. Writing the formula for calcium phosphate as Ca3P2O8 gives the correct number of each atom in the formula unit, but it obscures the fact that the compound contains readily identifiable PO43− ions.Summary • There are two fundamentally different kinds of chemical bonds (covalent and ionic) that cause substances to have very different properties. • The composition of a compound is represented by an empirical or molecular formula, each consisting of at least one formula unit.Contributors The atoms in chemical compounds are held together by attractive electrostatic interactions known as chemical bonds. Ionic compounds contain positively and negatively charged ions in a ratio that results in an overall charge of zero. The ions are held together in a regular spatial arrangement by electrostatic forces. Most covalent compounds consist of molecules, groups of atoms in which one or more pairs of electrons are shared by at least two atoms to form a covalent bond. The atoms in molecules are held together by the electrostatic attraction between the positively charged nuclei of the bonded atoms and the negatively charged electrons shared by the nuclei. The molecular formula of a covalent compound gives the types and numbers of atoms present. Compounds that contain predominantly carbon and hydrogen are called organic compounds, whereas compounds that consist primarily of elements other than carbon and hydrogen are inorganic compounds. Diatomic molecules contain two atoms, and polyatomic molecules contain more than two. A structural formula indicates the composition and approximate structure and shape of a molecule. Single bonds, double bonds, and triple bonds are covalent bonds in which one, two, and three pairs of electrons, respectively, are shared between two bonded atoms. Atoms or groups of atoms that possess a net electrical charge are called ions; they can have either a positive charge (cations) or a negative charge (anions). Ions can consist of one atom (monatomic ions) or several (polyatomic ions). The charges on monatomic ions of most main group elements can be predicted from the location of the element in the periodic table. Ionic compounds usually form hard crystalline solids with high melting points. Covalent molecular compounds, in contrast, consist of discrete molecules held together by weak intermolecular forces and can be gases, liquids, or solids at room temperature and pressure. An empirical formula gives the relative numbers of atoms of the elements in a compound, reduced to the lowest whole numbers. The formula unit is the absolute grouping represented by the empirical formula of a compound, either ionic or covalent. Empirical formulas are particularly useful for describing the composition of ionic compounds, which do not contain readily identifiable molecules. Some ionic compounds occur as hydrates, which contain specific ratios of loosely bound water molecules called waters of hydration.

Graphs and Absolute values of comlex numbers

Algebra 2 Inequalities and Absolute Values

SWITCH between PERCENTAGE and ABSOLUTE VALUES in one visual I

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Absolute Value and Ordering Rational Numbers

Related quizzes

Related quizzes