Coining money, making foreign treaties, and declaring war are all...

Expressed powers of the National Government

Reserved powers of the State Governments

Why was the Preamble to the Constitution written?

It explains the purposes of the Constitution.

It lists the grievances against the English government.

It reveals why the colonies declared their independence.

It states freedom of religious beliefs and opinions.

Lawmakers legislate in response to —

problems and issues in the community

Which document extended the rights of Englishmen to colonists?

Charters of the Virginia Company of London

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Which document gives cities, towns and counties in Virginia their power to govern?

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

What is the President’s annual speech to Congress in which he gives legislative guidance?

State of the Commonwealth Address

How can the federal judicial branch check congress?

Declare laws of Congress unconstitutional

Declare presidential acts unconstitutional

Comprehensive Review Part One

Electrostatics The section of CBSE Class 12 Physics electrostatic potential and capacitance notes mainly deals with the in-depth analysis of electromagnetic phenomena when they are not performing any movements. Additionally, it is divided into ten further sub-topics to study the companion processes of reaching the state. These are - 1. Electric charge In this section of Physics ch 2 Class 12 notes, you get to learn about the basic features of electric charge and its expression in Physics. Along with its basics, the sections help to understand the full potential of charge. Different aspects of Charge included in Class 12 Physics Chapter 2 notes are - Definition Type: Positive and Negative Charge Unit and dimensional formula Point Charge Properties of Charge Comparison of Charge and Mass Methods of Charging Electroscope 2. Coulomb's Law Force is created when charges of opposite signs attract each other, and they repulse if the signs are the same. Coulomb's law tries to define this phenomenon through a mathematical formula, explicitly mentioned in Physics Class 12 notes Chapter 2. Moreover, there is key information about the variation of the constant k and its effect on a medium. Coulomb's law's vector form and the principle of superimposition are also explained in ch 2 Physics Class 12 notes. (Image will be uploaded soon) 3. Electric Field As stated in Class 12 Physics Chapter 2 notes, every positively or negatively charged particle has their respective electric fields. It feels a force at the time of interaction which might be attraction or repulsion. As it arises from electric charge, it is crucial to know about its different parts like - Electric field intensity Relation between electric force and electric field Super imposition of electric field Point charge Continuous charge distributions Properties of Electric Field Lines Motion of Charged Particles in an Electric field Learning more about the electric field from electric potential and capacitance notes Class 12 helps a student to get a grasp of upcoming chapters. 4. Electric Potential Energy When energy helps a charge to move from an electric field, it is known as the Electric Potential Energy. This section of electrostatic chapter Class 12 notes requires a student to study the Electron volt (eV), and the potential energy that an n number of charges can hold. 5. Electric Potential This section of Class 12 Physics Chapter 2 notes focuses on in-depth learning of Electric Potential or Voltage. Basically, it defines the potential movement of energy. 6. Relation between Electric Field and Potential Apart from knowing more about the relationship between the two values, Physics Class 12 Chapter 2 notes also discuss equipotential surfaces. 7. Electric Dipole Essentially, 'Dipoles' are two opposite points of charge represented with q and –q, with their distance between each other being 2a. Electric Dipoles are crucial in your study of Physics Class 12 Chapter 2 notes to learn more about electric fields and their potential. Additionally, Class 12 Physics Chapter 2 notes focus on the influence of electric dipoles on a uniform electric field mainly through Force and Torque, Work, and Potential Energy. In the last part of Electrostatics, further focus is on using the formulas to their fullest potential. It includes subsections of Electric Field, Electric Potential Energy, Electric Potential, and Electric Dipole. In the notes for electrostatic potential and capacitance, you will find proper solutions accompanied by clear and crisp diagrams for better understanding. 8. Gauss's Law Apart from just discussing the Gauss's Law, in Physics Class 12 ch 2 notes there is a thorough explanation of its properties and applications. The Gauss' Law states that net electric flux passing through a hypothetical closed surface is equal to the net electric charge present within the same closed surface. Being a broad part of the whole chapter, you may need to spend a little more time on it. Moving forward, it starts discussing the properties of conductors in relation to Gauss's Law. The Class 12 Physics notes Chapter 2 perfectly defines the journey to Gauss' Law from Coulomb's Law. Here is the Gauss's Law present in the Class 12 Physics ch 2 notes, (image will be uploaded soon) 9. Capacitors There is a dedicated section about Capacitors in the Class 12 Physics Chapter 2 notes elucidating its functions and importance as storage of potential electric energy. After explaining the structure of a capacitor, it points out the different types, parallel plate, spherical and cylindrical. The section of Chapter 2 notes of Physics Class 12 is further divided into subheads like: Properties of an ideal battery Grouping of capacitors Simple circuits (Series and Parallel) Dielectric Van de Graaff generator Combination of drops Charge distribution method Wheatstone Bridge-based circuit Extended Wheatstone Bridge Infinite network of capacitors Redistribution of charge between two capacitors Vedantu prepares the Class 12 Physics Chapter 2 notes with help from subject matter experts. In the PDF, you get a comprehensive idea of the topic along with potential answers to the most asked questions. Furthermore, the detailed explanation on each section and subsections are written in a simple language allows a student to ace their exams with wholesome knowledge. These Physics Chapter 2 Class 12 notes are going to be one of the best supplementary study materials besides a student’s textbooks. Visit the Vedantu website or download the app to get your hands on all important notes! Important Questions A charge of 4 × 10–8C is uniformly distributed on the surface of a spherical conductor, having a radius of 15 cm. Determine the electric field just outside this sphere at a point that is 15 cm from the centre of this sphere. Determine the capacitance given that the distance between the two plates has been reduced by half and the parallel plate capacitor holds a capacitance of 20 pF (where 1pF = 10-12 F) having air between the two plates. What will be the total capacitance of a combination where three capacitors, each having a capacitance of 20 pF, are connected in series. A square having a side of 10 cm has a 500 µC charge at its centre. Determine the work done to move a charge of 10 µC between two points that are diagonally opposite each other on the square. At an equatorial point, what will be the electrostatic potential because of an electric dipole? Calculate the work done to move a test charge, q, through a length of 1 cm along the equatorial axis of an electric dipole? Polarisation A capacitor has its plates enclosed in a medium that can be filled by insulating substances. A net dipole moment is then induced by an electric field in the dielectric. This event causes the field in an opposite direction. Equipotential Surface An equipotential surface is a type of surface where the potential always has a constant value. If considered as a point charge, the concentric spheres that are centred at a particular area of this charge are basically equipotential surfaces. Advantages of Vedantu's Revision Notes: A Comprehensive Resource for Effective Learning There are several reasons why one may refer to Vedantu's revision notes for studying a subject like Electrostatic Potential and Capacitance. Here are some key points: Comprehensive Coverage: Vedantu's revision notes provide a comprehensive coverage of the entire topic, ensuring that all important concepts and subtopics are included. Concise and Organized: The notes are designed to be concise, focusing on the key points and core ideas. They are organized in a structured manner, making it easy for students to navigate and revise the content. Simplified Explanation: The revision notes offer simplified explanations of complex concepts, making them more accessible and easier to understand. This helps students grasp the material more effectively. Key Formulas and Equations: The notes highlight the key formulas and equations relevant to the topic, ensuring that students have a clear understanding of the mathematical aspects of Electrostatic Potential and Capacitance. Examples and Illustrations: Vedantu's revision notes often include examples and illustrations that help clarify concepts and provide practical applications, enabling students to better relate theory to real-world scenarios. Quick Recap: The revision notes serve as a quick recap of the important points, allowing students to review the material efficiently before exams or assessments. Exam-Oriented Approach: Vedantu's revision notes are designed with an exam-oriented approach, focusing on the topics and concepts that are frequently asked in examinations. This helps students prepare effectively and increase their chances of scoring well. Accessible Anytime: Vedantu's revision notes are easily accessible online, allowing students to study at their convenience and revise the material anytime, anywhere.

“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.

Comprehensive Review Part Two

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW II

Anatomy Comprehensive Review

Unit 3 Comprehensive Review #2

4th 6wks Comprehensive REVIEW 7th Grade

Related quizzes

Related quizzes