Question

An iceberg is a chunk of a glacier that has broken off and is floating in the ocean. Icebergs are made of fresh water while the ocean is salt water. The difference in the densities of fresh and salt water is minimal. Because of this, 90% of the iceberg is actually below the surface of the ocean water. As with an iceberg, there is more to tundra plants than what you see on the surface. Which statement below supports the analogy?

Answer 1

The glacier on land would cause a greater rise in the lake's water level upon melting since it will add its entire volume of water to the lake, while the melting iceberg will not change the water level because it is already displacing water equal to its weight.

Step-by-step explanation:

Regarding the question about which chunk of ice—the iceberg in the lake or the glacier on land next to the lake—would cause the greatest increase in the lake's water level if melted: the glacier on land would contribute more to the rise in water level. This is because the iceberg is already floating in the lake, and according to Archimedes' principle, it has already displaced an amount of water equivalent to its own weight. When it melts, it will convert to a volume of water exactly equal to the volume it displaced, not changing the water level. In contrast, the glacier on land will add its entire volume of water to the lake since it is not currently displacing any of the lake's water.

The comparison of an iceberg and tundra plants serves to illustrate that both have a greater part that is not immediately visible, supporting the analogy that just as most of an iceberg's mass is below the water's surface, most of a tundra plant's biomass is below the surface in the form of roots and other subterranean structures. This characteristic is essential for the plants' survival in the tundra's harsh conditions.