Question

the class generated some data. they measured the starting mass of mealworms. then they gave the mealworms 3.0 grams of food. after one day, the students measured the masses of the mealworms, leftover food and mealworm feces. below are the data they generated. initial mass of the mealworms was 8.9 g. final mass of the mealworms was 9.9 g. initial mass of the food was 3.0 g. final mass of the food was 1.2 g. change in mass 1.0 g. change in mass 1.8g. why didnt the mealworms grow in mass the same amount as the food they ate? which claim do you think is best supported by the data? you can pick more than one person, if you feel more than one claim is correct. evan: the mealworms body turned the mass of the food into energy in order to grow. madison: some of the mass the mealworms ate was breathed out as gases, like co2. li: the mealworms body got rid of some of the food as waste (feces).

Explanation:

Step1: Calculate mass change of meal - worms

The change in mass of meal - worms is calculated by subtracting the initial mass from the final mass. So, $9.9 - 8.9=1.0$ g.

Step2: Calculate mass change of food

The change in mass of food is calculated by subtracting the final mass from the initial mass. So, $3.0 - 1.2 = 1.8$ g.

Step3: Analyze claims

The claim that the mealworms grew in mass the same amount as the food they ate is not supported because the change in mass of mealworms is $1.0$ g and the change in mass of food is $1.8$ g.
Li's claim that some of the mass the mealworms ate was breathed out as gases like $CO_2$ and some was waste (feces) is a valid explanation for the difference in mass change between mealworms and food. Evan's claim that the mealworm's body turned the mass of the food into energy to grow is also valid as energy is required for growth and some mass is converted to energy during metabolic processes. But if we consider the mass - balance aspect, Li's claim better accounts for the 'missing' mass from the food in terms of waste and gas emissions.

Answer:

Li's claim is best supported by the data.