Why are some examples of a chemical reaction not actually foolproof evidence of a chemical reaction?
Provide two examples to support the statement that commonly known signs of chemical reactions are not always foolproof evidence of a chemical reaction.
Answer (3)
So basically, the change in color effects the amount of cations in the solution making it a physical change rather than a chemical one, defying the law of conservation of mass! I hope this helped! (The only time the change in color affects the amount of cations is in the Alkaline Earth Metals)
source: college science teacher
Bubble formation, change of color, and change of state are not foolproof evidence of a chemical reaction due to physical changes and variations in the reactions.
While bubble formation , change of color, and change of state of matter are commonly associated with chemical reactions, they are not always foolproof evidence. Two examples to support this statement are:
Physical changes can mimic some of these signs. For example, the melting of ice is a change of state, but it is a physical change rather than a chemical reaction.
Some chemical reactions may not produce the expected signs. For instance, some reactions may be slow or occur at very low concentrations , making it difficult to observe noticeable changes.
Therefore, it is important to consider multiple lines of evidence and conduct further analysis to confirm the occurrence of a chemical reaction.
Learn more about Evidence of a Chemical Reactions here:
https://brainly.com/question/33458331
#SPJ11
Some signs of chemical reactions, such as color changes or gas formation, can occur in physical changes rather than chemical changes. For example, mixing food coloring can cause a color change without any chemical reaction, and boiling water produces steam (gas) while the water remains chemically unchanged. Therefore, careful observation and analysis are essential to differentiate between these occurrences.
;
