# Complete literal source and task alternative

## P06-a · 1 actual pages

## E later page · A changed pouch condition

### Complete later source E

In E's first pouch scenario, inside solute was 0.40 mol/L and outside 0.15 mol/L. Water could cross, solute could not, and initial temperature and pressure were equal. Those conditions supported an initial net inward water prediction.

Now consider a second scenario with the same concentrations and permeability and equal temperature, but **hydrostatic pressure on the two sides is unknown and may differ**. It is no longer supplied as equal. No full water-potential values are given. U and V's transport file and the membrane display are unchanged; the later scenario concerns only the pouch.

### Complete later task E

Write a second response about the pouch. Say which conclusion was supported in the first scenario. For the new pressure-unknown scenario, decide whether the concentration-only inward arrow is certain, conditional or unresolved. Explain your judgement using water potential and name the additional information needed. State one result from the earlier U/V or membrane explanation that remains supported. Do not erase the first response or describe its stated equal-pressure conclusion as an error merely because the scenario changed.

## P08-a · 1 actual pages

## F later page · The missing conditions

### Complete later source F

F's first geometric model used edges 3 mm and 6 mm and an imposed layer 0.5 mm deep at 2 minutes. Those dimensions and layer values remain unchanged. For this supplied interval, the layer starts at depth d_start = 0 mm when t_start = 0 min. Average front speed = Δdepth/Δtime = (d_end − d_start)/(t_end − t_start). This is the model's interval average, not a constant future speed, intrinsic diffusion coefficient or molecular flux.

The separate endpoint-time file lists A: 40, 44, 48 s and B: 88, 92, 96 s, with the same stated material, external solution and endpoint rule. Additional model-plan notes now state that A's temperature was set at 20°C and B's at 30°C, and stirring was not standardised. No actual experiment or learner investigation has occurred.

### Complete later task F

Review the endpoint-time conclusion in a second response. State whether you **keep** an already cautious claim or **revise** an overstatement, and explain why. Give the numerical comparison that remains valid, identify the temperature/stirring confounds, and describe an improved size comparison with a defined dependent measure and independent repeats. Name one geometric result that remains unchanged. Do not claim the notes prove the entire time difference is caused by temperature, stirring or size.