The nuclei of a limited number of atoms are investigated to determine
the number of protons and neutrons in each. The following table
summarizes the results:

helium       2 protons, 2 neutrons
carbon       6 protons, 6 neutrons
nitrogen     7 protons, 7 neutrons

a. Form a scientific law based on these limited measurements.
b. What other measurements could be carried out to further confirm this law?
c. Devise a theory that would explain your law.
d. How would the following results affect your theory and your law?

uranium   92 protons, 143 neutrons
chromium  24 protons, 28 neutrons

Google Answers discourages and may remove questions that are homework
or exam assignments.

I did not see this condition in the "Terms of Service" agreement.

Oh, I almost forgot. The answers given to me I will treat as
copyrighted material and will only use as a reference. Thank you.

Well, probably no one is going to do your work for you, but I'm sure
plenty of people would be happy to explain (for free) what the
question is trying to accomplish.  This is a great questions,
especially in these times where non-science like intelligent design is
all over the place.  Understanding this questions will help you
understand why scientists don't like ID.  You might be intimidated by
it because at first blush it might seem like it's asking you to
postulate some grand scientific theory.  That is not the idea.  This
is about understanding the scientific method.  It's not important that
your theory be correct (in fact, it almost certainly won't be).  What
is important is that you understand what makes a "scientific theory"
different than a fanciful explanation. What you need to do to answer
this question is:
1) Examine the current data (the 3 initial observations)
2) Look for a pattern in the data (this will be your "law")
--Now a big key to what makes something "scientific". Your law, and
subsequent theory behind the law (just a best guess as to why your law
is true) must be falsifiable.  That is to say there must be a way to
test it such that the test can fail. If the test fails, your theory
and law are rejected. If the test passes, your theory and law are not
rejected. You law and theory they can never be proved, only not
rejected.  The more predictions  made and the more confirming
observations, the more established your law and theory become (though
never proved!).  So that leads to:
3)What predictions does your law imply? What else can you observe to
see if your law (the pattern you found in the data) is rejected?
4)The answer is strongly hinted at because they actually give you a
set of future observations!  Were those new observations predicted by
your theory/law? If not, your theory/law is rejected as currently
stated. It can be totally discared, or modified to fit your new
observations.  In which case observations must be made to see how your
new formulation holds up.  But that's not really the point. The point
was to demonstrate the process.

So really, this question is not about your answer, it's about your process.

I appreciate the explanation of the questions and the hesitancy by
some to answer the 4 part question fully due to a code of ethic.
Unfortunately for me, my brain at this time cannot think anymore on
this topic than it has and is looking for another perspective in order
to grasp the concept. The textbook I am using has too much mumbo jumbo
and is not in a chemistry for "dummies" format. I would say in about
one thousand two hundred and eleven years I would grasp the idea by
myself after 10,608,360 hours of pure delight in the world of atomic
theory; but I haven't done the calculations for that and I suppose it
would be more cost efficient to know the answer by the end of this
year. $12 is probably not worth anyones time but it is better than $11
and there is that saying, "The laborer is worthy to be rewarded"
"$12".

I think you are still missing though that this question really has
very little to do with Chemistry.  Ok, I will give you a similarly
formulated question and a reasonable answer.  Can you see how it is
the same as this question, even though it mentions nothing at all
about chemistry?
--
The heights and 100M sprint times of 3 Olympic runners are recorded:
6'0" 10.01
6'1" 9.98
6'2" 9.94

a. Form a scientific law based on these limited measurements.
b. What other measurements could be carried out to further confirm this law?
c. Devise a theory that would explain your law.
d. How would the following results affect your theory and your law?

6'3" 10.05
6'4" 9.99
---
a) Look for a patter in the data, extrapolate.  Thus a feasible law
would be "Running speed increases as height increases".
b) What observations can I make that would potentially falsify this?
Easy, measure more runners.
c) A theory as to why? Well, perhaps taller people have longer legs,
meaning they get more distance per stride
d)Well, those new observations are quite a monkey wrench in tha
law/theory.  They invalidate it.  Perhaps a better law is that speed
is proportional to height up until 6'3", and it is inversely
proportional to height beyond 6'3".  How to further test? Measure more
runners.

The answer to the question you posted should go along these lines. 
The key thing to take from this is not that you are good or bad at
coming up with laws and theories (no one would try on only 3 data
points...), it is that you understand that a good theory will explain
past observations and make testible, falsifiable predictions about
future observations.

Darn it, Frank, you're gonna ruin ID for the rest of us. If we can say
"It's a mystery" to science things we don't grasp, pretty soon we can
use it on math and spelling tests!