วีดีโอ

Yes, is on the right track and is quite strong but it can be benefit further when it refined for clarity and precision.

es, you can certainly present the argument that the phlogiston theory was both wrong and not useful as a counterpoint to the claim. Since, the phlogiston theory was indeed wrong in its basic premise, it could be argued that it was not particularly useful either. Unlike other models that helped pave the way for new discoveries, the phlogiston theory hindered the understanding of combustion. It led researchers down a misguided path, which delayed the acceptance of the correct theory of oxygen and combustion. However, this presents a challenge to Box's claim because, in this case, the model wasn't just wrong, it was also not particularly useful in advancing knowledge. The phlogiston theory’s limitations illustrate that not all models, even if they are wrong, are helpful or productive in the scientific process.

If you find my videos and comments helpful, please consider subscribing, liking, and sharing. Thank you for your support!

Yes, the phlogiston theory can be a useful example with reference to the Natural Sciences, particularly in the context of how scientific models evolve over time. Think about how the phlogiston theory was eventually proven wrong, but it was still useful for its time in guiding research and experimentation and was an important step in the evolution of scientific thinking (a useful model in the progression of scientific knowledge.). Such as it allowed chemists to build experiments, develop ideas, and explore chemical reactions in ways that led to new discoveries.

@@msmoonIBchannel because I said is was both wrong and not useful, is that wrong? as a counter argument to the claim

@@PANTERZ Yes, you can certainly present the argument that the phlogiston theory was both wrong and not useful as a counterpoint to the claim. Since, the phlogiston theory was indeed wrong in its basic premise, it could be argued that it was not particularly useful either. Unlike other models that helped pave the way for new discoveries, the phlogiston theory hindered the understanding of combustion. It led researchers down a misguided path, which delayed the acceptance of the correct theory of oxygen and combustion. However, this presents a challenge to Box's claim because, in this case, the model wasn't just wrong, it was also not particularly useful in advancing knowledge. The phlogiston theory’s limitations illustrate that not all models, even if they are wrong, are helpful or productive in the scientific process.

can you share your document with me? you can email me at msmoon.teacher@gmail.com

I have posted the link to description.

Thank you ❤️

Hello! The full solution can be found in my other video titled 'IB DP Math AASL Nov 2023 TZ1 Paper 1 (Section A) - Q1 & Q2.' Please follow this link: th-cam.com/video/2O4mvZeecT0/w-d-xo.html. It's Question 2 in the video.

Hi, I think you looked at different timezone mark scheme. TZ1 paper 2 3B answer is K=1/3

No problem!

the common factor in this case is (x^2+2)^2. Two terms in the numerator and the term denominator have common factor (x^2+2)^2 in in their terms. So it is same as [12(x^2+2)^2(x^2+2) - 72 x^2 (x^2+2)^2] / [(x^2+2)^2(x^2+2)^2], then you get rid of (x^2+2)^2 from each term then you are left with (x^2+2)^4 in the denominator.

@@msmoonIBchannelokay, i understand now. your videos have been soooo helpful for the math exams!! thank you so much