Answer:
Electronegativity values between atoms in a polar covalent bond have differences that lie between 0.4 to 1.7 which is clearly less than 1.7.
Missing term : Less
Explanation:
Electronegativity as we all know is the capability of holding the valence electrons by the atoms while forming bonds with one another. Now, when two atoms come together to form any kind of bonds, they tend to either lose their electrons, gain electrons from the other atom or collaborate to share them together.
To know at what instinct, the atoms are going to either form a covalent or an ionic bond, we need to know the difference between the electronegativity of both the atoms. this difference in electronegativity, defines the nature of the bond between them.
If the difference in electronegativity of atoms lies between 0.4 to 1.7, they tend to form a polar covalent bond and acquire a partial positive and negative charge, the electron being more biased to one of the atom.
On the other side, when the difference come greater than 1.7, the atoms tend to have a non-polar bond where they share the electrons with each other. Water is a good example of non-polar covalent bond.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Ethnic Germans served on both sides of the American Revolutionary War. Many, notably rented auxiliary troops from Germanic states such as the Landgraviate of Hessen-Kassel, supported the Loyalist cause and served as allies of the Kingdom of Great Britain, whose King George III was also the Elector of Hanover.
American rebel agitators misrepresented such troops as mercenaries to fuel propaganda against the British Crown. Even American historians followed suit, in spite of Colonial-era jurists drawing a distinction between auxiliaries and mercenaries, with auxiliaries serving their prince when sent to the aid of another prince, and mercenaries serving a foreign prince as individuals. By this distinction the troops which served in the American Revolution were auxiliaries.
Other German individuals came to assist the American rebels, but most who did so were already colonists.
I think the correct answer for this would be C. Attacking slaves makes little to no sense, nor does political leaders, as that was late in the war. The first option would entail that the north never changed tactics. Monuments makes sense because they were a symbol of the confederate message and lifestyle. Attacking those sends a message that the Confederate States of America were coming to an end.