The thoughts of others Here are some ideas that other students shared. As you read through them, compare these responses to your own and consider how they are similar or different.

Student A: “It will still be paper no matter how many times you cut it or how small it gets. When you cut paper in half, it is still paper So no matter how small you cut it, it will always be paper.”
Student B: “Paper is made from wood. As you keep cutting the paper smaller and smaller, you will eventually get to the stuff, like wood, that paper is made of. So you will no longer have paper.”
Student C: “The paper will eventually get so small that it will turn into dust instead of paper.”
Student D: “If you had fancy enough equipment, you could continue dividing the paper into smaller pieces, but eventually it would not be paper anymore. You would have tiny pieces that are different from paper.”
Question 1
Which student(s) do you agree with? You may choose more than one.

a
Student A
b
Student B
c
Student C
d
Student D
Question 2
Explain why you agree with the student(s) you chose.
Possible models of matter
Review the responses of Students A–D again.
Classify each student’s answer into one of the following categories: agrees with the continuous model of matter (Matter can be divided in half forever, never reaching a smallest piece), agrees with the particle model of matter (Matter is made from tiny particles, which themselves can't be divided into smaller pieces), or does not clearly agree with either model.
For Questions 3-5 you may choose more than one answer.

Question 3
Agree(s) with continuous model of matter

a
Student A
b
Student B
c
Student C
d
Student D
Question 4
Agree(s) with particle model of matter

a
Student A
b
Student B
c
Student C
d
Student D
Question 5
No clear agreement with either model

a
Student A
b
Student B
c
Student C
d
Student D
Question 6
How would you classify your answer to the question about cutting paper? Choose one of the options below and explain.

1. Agrees with the continuous model of matter

2. Agrees with the particle model of matter

3. No clear agreement with either model