What primarily accounts for the formation of light elements such as hydrogen and helium in the early universe according to the Big Bang theory?

Nucleosynthesis during the first few minutes after the Big Bang

Nuclear decay of heavy elements

What evidence supports the Big Bang theory regarding the formation of light elements?

The observed abundance of light elements in the universe

The uniformity of cosmic microwave background radiation

What role did temperature and density play in the formation of light elements during the Big Bang?

They were sufficient for nuclear fusion to occur

They only affected the formation of heavy elements

They prevented fusion from occurring

They had no impact on element formation

What is the significance of the cosmic microwave background radiation in relation to the formation of light elements?

It provides evidence for the conditions that allowed nucleosynthesis

It proves the existence of black holes

It indicates the presence of dark energy

It shows the distribution of galaxies

How did the cooling of the universe contribute to the formation of light elements during the Big Bang?

It allowed protons and neutrons to combine into nuclei

It led to the formation of dark matter

It caused the universe to become transparent

It increased the abundance of free electrons

What particle interactions primarily facilitated the production of light elements such as helium and deuterium in the early universe?

Nuclear reactions among protons and neutrons

Gravitational collapse of gas clouds

Electron interactions with photons

Give evidence for and explain the formation of the light elements in the Big Bang theory

*BRITISH EDUCATION SCHOOL* *Grade 9 - English Language - Literature* *Chapter 5: The Young Tulip-grower - "The Black Tulip"* * *Section A: Reading Comprehension [12 Marks]* Answer in complete sentences. 2 marks each. 1. Describe Cornelius’s feelings and exact words when he looked at the 3 bulbs. What do they show about his character? 2. Why did Cornelius choose to save the bulbs before reading Craeke’s letter? What does this tell us about his priorities? 3. Explain how Cornelius hid the bulbs from the soldiers. Why was this action risky? 4. Why was Isaac Boxtel watching Cornelius’s house? Was he happy or sad about Cornelius’s arrest? Give evidence. 5. What important information did Isaac learn from Cornelius’s notebook? How did this change his plan? 6. Compare Cornelius and Isaac. Who loves the tulips more? Give one reason for each character. *Section B: Vocabulary in Context [8 Marks]* Choose the best meaning of the underlined word. 1 mark each. 1. Cornelius was *surprised* when Craeke ran in. a) happy b) shocked c) angry d) sleepy 2. He picked up the bulbs *carefully*. a) quickly b) with attention c) loudly d) angrily 3. The judge said Cornelius had papers of a *traitor*. a) hero b) friend c) person who betrays his country d) servant 4. The house was *empty* when Isaac entered. a) full of people b) with no one inside c) very big d) very clean 5. Cornelius thanked God the bulbs were not *damaged*. a) broken b) painted c) lost d) old 6. Isaac looked through his *telescope*. a) book b) tool for seeing far c) gun d) letter 7. Cornelius was not *frightened* of the soldiers. a) afraid b) excited c) hungry d) tired 8. Isaac was *jealous* of Cornelius. a) loved him b) wanted what he had c) helped him d) ignored him *Section C: Grammar - Past Continuous vs Past Simple [6 Marks]* Fill in with correct verb form. 1 mark each. 1. While Cornelius ............at the bulbs, Craeke ran into the room. 2. The servant .........that soldiers were coming to arrest him. 3. Isaac ............Cornelius’s house with his telescope all day. 4. When the judge arrived, Cornelius ....... the bulbs in his pocket. 5. The soldiers .........into the room while Cornelius was talking. 6. Isaac .......... the notebook after he searched all the drawers.[look][say][watch][put][run][find] *D* Who Said, write the speaker 1. "Next year, these bulbs will be black tulips. I am the happiest man!" 2. "Please, read this letter immediately, sir!" 3. "You must give that package to me. It is not yours!" 4. "Good! The soldiers will take Cornelius to The Hague. Then they will kill him." 5. "I cannot wait! He has come from The Hague." 6. "None of these was a black tulip!" *E* write your own answer according to your understanding to the current chapter. 1. If you were Cornelius, would you save the bulbs or read the letter first? Give 2 reasons for your choice. [2 marks] 2. Do you think Isaac is a villain or just ambitious? Explain your opinion with evidence from the chapter. [2 marks] *F* Complete the quotes from the chapter. 1. "I must put these bulbs safely in a ........... 2. "The bulbs are not ............I thank God for that." 3. "Last January, Cornelius De Witt left a package of papers in this ............ 4. "Today I have three small tulip from one large bulb. These bulbs will have flowers in the spring ..................

Give evidence for and describe the formation of heavier elements during star formation and evolution

“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.

1 What is the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)? 2 Describe three nationally accredited training products. 3 Define CBA. How is CBA different from other types of assessment? Briefly describe how the four (4) principles of assessment impact the CBA process. 4 Briefly describe how the rules of evidence impact the collection of evidence. 5 Describe different methods of gathering evidence for CBA . Describe the three main assessment methods. Describe the two different assessment pathways. What is recognition of prior learning (RPL), and what are the benefits? 6 What are the three endorsed components of training packages? 7 Briefly describe the components of a unit of competency (UofC). 8 What is the ACSF? Identify the five core skills. 9 How do the dimensions of competency guide assessment practices? 10 What is the purpose and context of assessment? How can you contextualise an assessment while maintaining the integrity of the Unit of Competency? 11 What is the difference between assessment tools and assessment instruments? What are the essential parts of an assessment tool? 13 What is the purpose of mapping against units of competency? 14 Describe reasonable adjustment in competency-based assessment. What are the limitations? 15 What would you do if a candidate provided you with evidence that was not authentic? 16 How does the marker’s guide support you in objective assessment judgement? 17 Give an example of inclusive language when giving assessment instructions. 18 What are the key WHS instructions that are required prior to commencing assessment? 19 What do you look for when clustering units of competency for an assessment tool? 20 What are the key characteristics of a cohort of learners that need to be considered in the planning an assessment tool?

Chapter 7 Study Guide Answers What does the Bill of Rights do? The Bill of Rights lists our basic rights. Who is the person mainly responsible for the Bill of Rights? James Madison is the person mainly responsible for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is part of which document? The Bill of Rights is part of the United States Constitution. Whose job is it to protect our rights listed in the bill of rights? It is the job of the federal courts (judicial branch) to protect our rights. What are the five rights listed in the first amendment? Freedom of speech: includes symbolic speech; does not include speech that could endanger the public safety. Religion: Right to believe whatever you want, but you can’t do whatever you want in the name of religion (can’t break the law). Press: The free flow of information and ideas; can’t print lies or information that could be helpful to an enemy in wartime. Assembly: Use public property for meetings and demonstrations (i.e. parades, protests, political rallies). Must be done legally and peaceably. Right to petition: Means you can appeal to the government if you’re unhappy about something or some policy. Give one example of speech NOT protected under the first amendment. An example of speech not protected under the first amendment would be crying “fire” in a crowded movie theater (anything that could potentially endanger the public safety). What does the second amendment give us the right to? The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. What does the third amendment state we are not legally obligated to do? Under the third amendment, we are not obligated to quarter (or house) soldiers in our homes. What does the fourth amendment protect us from? The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. What is needed in order to search or seize property? A warrant is needed, which must be issued by a judge, in order to search and seize property. What five rights are we guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment? Right to a grand jury: determines whether or not the government has enough evidence to bring someone to trial. Double jeopardy: Once a person has been found not guilty, he cannot be tried again for the same crime. Self incrimination: A person has the right to remain silent; he does not have to testify against himself. Due process: The government must follow a clear set of rules (a process) as it carries out the law and takes your life, liberty, or property. Just compensation: If the government has to take someone’s land, they will offer a fair price. What is the right stated in the “Miranda Warning”? The main right stated in the “Miranda Warning” is the right to remain silent. What are the four rights stated under the sixth amendment? Right to a speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury. Right to a jury of people that live in the defendant’s area (jury of your peers). To hear and question all witnesses Right to an attorney As stated in the seventh amendment, we have the right to which type of trial depending on how much money a person is being sued for? What can a judge NOT do? Under the seventh amendment, we have the right to a jury trial depending on how much money is at stake in a civil trial. A judge cannot overturn a decision made by a jury. What are the four things that are prohibited under the eighth amendment? The four things that are prohibited (or not allowed) under the eighth amendment are: excessive fines, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments, and poor prison conditions. Under the ninth amendment, rights not listed in the Bill of Rights belong to whom? According to the ninth amendment, rights not listed in the Bill of Rights belong to the people. The tenth amendment states that powers not given to the national government are reserved for whom? According to the tenth amendment, powers not specifically given to the national government are reserved for the people and the states. What is meant by the term “double jeopardy”? The term “double Jeopardy” refers to a person being retried for a crime in which he has already been acquitted, or found “not guilty”. What does it mean to be indicted by a grand jury? To be indicted by a grand jury means that a person will be going to trial and will retain all of the rights listed in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes