Praxis Dashboard

Neither sample can be identified by density alone.

Density alone is not sufficient to definitively identify the materials of the two samples, as multiple substances can share similar densities. The slight difference in density between the two samples does not provide unique identification, as many materials may fall within a similar density range.

A) Both samples are made of the same material.

This option is incorrect because the densities of the two samples are different (2.7 g/cm² for Sample 1 and 2.6 g/cm² for Sample 2), indicating they are likely not made of the same material. Identical materials would typically have the same density.

B) Both samples are made of materials not listed in the table.

While this option could be true, it does not address the core issue. The densities provided do not specifically indicate that they are materials not listed in the table; they simply show that the materials cannot be identified solely based on density.

C) Sample 1 is made of glass, and sample 2 is made of quartz.

This conclusion cannot be definitively made based solely on their densities. Although glass and quartz have characteristic densities, the values presented (2.7 g/cm² and 2.6 g/cm²) do not uniquely identify the samples as such without additional context or information.

D) Neither sample can be identified by density alone.

This option is correct because density is not a unique identifier for materials. Different substances can have similar densities, and therefore, without more information, one cannot ascertain the specific identities of the samples based solely on the provided density values.

Conclusion

The correct answer is that neither sample can be identified by density alone, as density values can overlap among various materials. The other options either misinterpret the density differences or make assumptions that cannot be supported without further evidence. Thus, the conclusion emphasizes the limitations of using density as the sole criterion for material identification.