Everyone likes to group things. Language students group word as verbs, nouns and so on; collections of words are classified as phrases, or clauses, or sentences, and these again are reclassified according to their function. In the same way, botanistsw classify plants as algae, or fungi, or gymnosperms, etc. Zoologysts classify animals as vertrebrates and investibrates. The vetrebrates can be further classified as mammals, reptiler, birds, fish, etc. Classification enables us to keep hold of more information and, if it is based on the right data, enables us to understand better the ideas we are studying.
Chemists are no exception. The chemical classification of materials, if it is based on a good system, should enable us to understand better the many substances which exist in our word. What is to be the basis of our classification? Perhaps the most obvious one is appearance. Materials could be classified as solid, liquid or gas with some mixed types as, for example, mud being solid/liquid material and steam a liquid/gas material. Appearance could enable us to subdivide our main classification groups a little further; the solid may be green, or black, powdery or crystalline; the liquid may be colored, oily, thick, or free flowing; the gas may be colored. However, we soon realize that many probably quite different materials have the same appearance. Both air and the deadly carbon-monoxide gas, are colorless, odorless gases, but we would not like to group them as the same thing. Many different liquids are colorless, water-like materials.
Paragraph 2 exemplifies the idea about classification that ... .
A. chemicals may be solid, liquid, and gaseous.
B. Appearance is not a useful basis in chemistry.
C. The use of colors is better than that of appearance.
D. Both colors and appearance should be considered
E. Colors should be included for identifying appearance.
28