Final answer:
To identify the epicenter of an earthquake from a seismometer reading in Chicago, the closest city from the given options would likely be the epicenter. Without precise seismic wave arrival times, we can consider Kansas City as the most plausible epicenter due to its proximity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question relates to the use of seismometers to detect earthquakes. Given that a seismometer in Chicago detected a quake and the provided options for the epicenter's location, we can imply that the epicenter is likely closer to Chicago than other cities. Without additional data on the seismic waves' arrival times in Chicago, a direct answer isn't possible. However, the epicenter of a quake is typically the closest geographical location to the recording seismometer, assuming the same geological conditions across the areas.
Using the prospect of elimination, we look at the cities provided. If a seismometer in Chicago detected an earthquake, it is more plausible for the epicenter to be in Kansas City due to its relative proximity to Chicago compared to Seattle, Santa Barbara, or Boston. Proximity is critical, as seismic waves diminish in energy as they travel further from the epicenter.
The precise determination of the epicenter would need analysis of the seismic waves' arrival times. P-waves, being faster, would arrive before S-waves. The time difference between these waves' arrival times can be used to triangulate the quake's earliest source. In practice, geologists use data from multiple stations to pinpoint an earthquake's epicenter more accurately.