Prediction: I predict that the higher the concentration of hydrochloric acid the faster the rate of the reaction will be. This is because I think there is more acid particles in 2 molar of hydrochloric acid than in 1 molar of hydrochloric acid to react with the particle of the limestone chips.
Fair test: I think that I will keep it a fair test by using the same equipment for every time I do this experiment weather it is with 2moler or weather it is with 0.5 molar I will keep the same equipment. I will also keep the same weight of the chips, which will be 3g, and I will also keep the same amount of acid in each experiment, which will be 15 ml.
Equipment: *Gas Pipe. *Measuring cylinder 1big.
1 small.
* Basin. *Hydrochloric acid.
*Calcium Carbonate *Stopwatch.
Chips.
Safety: When doing this experiment you should wear safety goggle in case the acid will get into your eyes, it will than protect you.
Method: *Pour water into basin.
This is a preview of the whole essay
Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The title appears garish and unprofessional. I would have used a simple text format rather than word art. Calcium 'carbonated' should be calcium 'carbonate.' Minor grammar mistakes present a few times. Other error= 2 molar which should be 2 moles. Some minor spelling mistakes. Grammar appears fine. Layout is fine, but sub-headings should be made grammatically correct.
Level of analysis
The candidate explains their prediction in very simplistic scientific terms and I would expect further knowledge of molecules and compounds such that they should use proper scientific words. The candidate does identify things to keep the same but should explain why they are kept the same to show a deeper understanding of the topic. The candidate does not state at first what results they are looking for in the experiment so I wasn't sure what the water was used for, so this should be stated earlier to show the variables they are going to measure. The scientific knowledge is provided later which shows a good level of understanding but this is not linked to the experiment in any way. The equation should show proper scientific notation. I'm not sure what the results show and there are no units on the graph. I'm guessing it was the volume of gas that appeared in the cylinder that was being measured but this should be made clear. The results are explained with good trend. The candidate does explain how they might improve the experiment but this is not explained very well and where this is located is slightly awkward in positioning as the text does not flow. They repeat the same points in the conclusion and evaluation which are not the same. They also do not point out errors and improvements to the errors which should be done in the experiment.
Response to question
The response to the question is done moderately well. The candidate does not explain what they are measuring in the experiment very well and whilst there is some knowledge of the science behind the experiment this is not evidently linked to the experiment but 'all over the place' in different sections. The evaluation and conclusion need further development to point out errors and make valid conclusions from the data. The table needs to be better presented with values, and clear segregation.
