All categories

3 years ago

If an atom has an electron configuration of 2.8.2, what will it be most likely to bond with?

Chemistry

1 answer:

Kipish [7]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

B. Two chlorine atoms

Explanation:

This electronic configuration shows that the given atom is magnesium.

Electronic configuration of magnesium:

Mg¹² = 1s² 2s² 2p⁶ 3s²

There are two valance electrons of magnesium that's why it would react with two atoms of chlorine. Chlorine is present in seventeen group. It has seven valance electrons. It required just one electron to get complete octet. While magnesium needed to lose two electrons to get complete octet. That's why two chlorine atoms bonded with one magnesium atom. Thus both would get complete octet.

Mg + Cl₂ → MgCl₂

You might be interested in

Many double-displacement reactions are enzyme-catalyzed via the "ping pong" mechanism, so called because the reactants appear to

zhenek [66]

Answer:

D. It will decrease by a factor of 4

Explanation:

According to the question , the equation follows :

$A+B\rightarrow C+D$

Rate law : This states the rate of reaction is directly proportional to concentration of reactants with each reactant raised to some power which may or may not be equal to the stoichiometeric coefficient.

$Rate\ \alpha [A]^{a}[B]^{b}$

$r=[A]^{a}[B]^{b}$ .................(1)

STEP": First, find out the power "a" and "b"

a+b = 3 (because it is given that the reaction follow 3rd order-kinetics)

According to question, doubling the concentration of the first reactant causes the rate to increase by a factor of 2 means,

r' = 2r if [A'] = 2[A]

Here [B] is uneffected means [B']=[B]

hence new rate =

$r'=[A']^{a}[B']^{b}$

Put the value of [A'] , [B'] and r' in the above equation:

$2r=[2A]^{a}[B]^{b}$ ...........(2)

Divide equation (1) by (2) we , get

$\frac{2r}{r}=\frac{[2A]^{2}[B]^{b}}{[A]^{a}[B]^{b}}$

$2= 2(\frac{A}{A})^{a}\times (\frac{B}{B})^{b}$

Here A and A cancel each other

B and B cancel each other

We get,

$2= 2^{a}\times 1^{b}$

1^b = 1 ( power of 1 = 1)

$2= 2^{a}$

This is possible only when a = 1

We know that : a + b = 3

1 + b = 3

b =3 -1 = 2

b = 2

Hence the rate law becomes :

$r=[A]^{a}[B]^{b}$

$r=[A]^{1}[B]^{2}$ .............(3)

Look in the question now, it is asked to calculate the concentration of [B],if cut in half

Hence

[B']=1/2[B]

Insert the value of [B'] in equation (3)

$r'=[A]^{1}[B']^{2}$

$r'=[A]^{1}(\frac{1}{2}[B])^{2}$

$r'=\frac{1}{4}[A]^{1}[B]^{2}$ ............(a)

But

$r=[A]^{a}[B]^{b}$ ..............(b)

Compare equation (a) and (b) , we get

new rate r' =

r' = 1/4 r

7 0

3 years ago

A radioactive isotope of potassium (K) has a half-life of 20 minutes. If a 40.0 gram sample of this isotope is allowed to decay

Ivahew [28]

Answer: 2.5 grams

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration p

pochemuha

Answer:

Option A is correct.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

Explanation:

The main aim of the argument presented is to talk down the use of burning by incinerators method to dispose chemical waste. The argument presents great points in that there were 40 incidents at two existing commissioned incinerators in the last year where unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents happened.

So, basically, the argument is all about how the high frequency of the unsuspected release of dangerous chemical agents should discourage this method of chemical waste disposal.

The argument then concluded that if more chemical waste are disposed using the burning by incinerator method, there will be more unsuspected release of dangerous chemicals.

We are then required to find the statement that most weakens the conclusion that there will be more toxic releases if more chemical waste are burned.

Analysing the Statements one by one

Statement A

This statement provides a possible reason for this high frequency of dangerous chemical releases. It states that the staff haven't been properly trained. So, this means that properly training the staff should most likely lead to lesser cases of toxic releases into the environment.

This is the statement that most weakens the conclusion.

Statement B

The conclusion wasn't about the incinerator method being the safest method. It was about whether increased incineration would lead to more toxic relaeses. So, this doesn't affect the conclusion.

Statement C

This statement says that incineration can be increased without building new incinerators by tapping into unused capacity at the old incinerators. Also doesn't affect rhe conclusion whether increased use of incineration will lead to more toxic leaks.

Statement D

This statement strengthens the argument; which is the opposite of what we're aiming to achieve.

Statement E

This statement hints that the toxic leaks do not have that much of a harmful effect because the toxic releases do not go beyond the property of the incinerator. This also doesnt tackle the conclusion about the frequency of leaks, it only addresses how not harmful the toxic leaks can be.

Hope this Helps!!!

5 0

4 years ago

1-isopropyl-2-methylcyclohexane identify the numbers of hydrogen atoms

yanalaym [24]

Explanation:

I think 20

0 in the photo should be 1, 1, 1

8 0

2 years ago

If a sample of water has a mass of 200g and the final solution has a mass of 230g, how much solute dissolved in the water?

Murrr4er [49]

What is the difference between the two numbers? That is your answer

6 0

3 years ago