P06-a · 1 actual pages
E later page · A changed pouch condition
Complete later source E
In E's first pouch scenario, inside solute was 0.40 mol/L and outside 0.15 mol/L. Water could cross, solute could not, and initial temperature and pressure were equal. Those conditions supported an initial net inward water prediction.
Now consider a second scenario with the same concentrations and permeability and equal temperature, but hydrostatic pressure on the two sides is unknown and may differ. It is no longer supplied as equal. No full water-potential values are given. U and V's transport file and the membrane display are unchanged; the later scenario concerns only the pouch.
Complete later task E
Write a second response about the pouch. Say which conclusion was supported in the first scenario. For the new pressure-unknown scenario, decide whether the concentration-only inward arrow is certain, conditional or unresolved. Explain your judgement using water potential and name the additional information needed. State one result from the earlier U/V or membrane explanation that remains supported. Do not erase the first response or describe its stated equal-pressure conclusion as an error merely because the scenario changed.
P08-a · 1 actual pages
F later page · The missing conditions
Complete later source F
F's first geometric model used edges 3 mm and 6 mm and an imposed layer 0.5 mm deep at 2 minutes. Those dimensions and layer values remain unchanged. For this supplied interval, the layer starts at depth d_start = 0 mm when t_start = 0 min. Average front speed = Δdepth/Δtime = (d_end − d_start)/(t_end − t_start). This is the model's interval average, not a constant future speed, intrinsic diffusion coefficient or molecular flux.
The separate endpoint-time file lists A: 40, 44, 48 s and B: 88, 92, 96 s, with the same stated material, external solution and endpoint rule. Additional model-plan notes now state that A's temperature was set at 20°C and B's at 30°C, and stirring was not standardised. No actual experiment or learner investigation has occurred.
Complete later task F
Review the endpoint-time conclusion in a second response. State whether you keep an already cautious claim or revise an overstatement, and explain why. Give the numerical comparison that remains valid, identify the temperature/stirring confounds, and describe an improved size comparison with a defined dependent measure and independent repeats. Name one geometric result that remains unchanged. Do not claim the notes prove the entire time difference is caused by temperature, stirring or size.