To know this you pretty much do have to kind of memorize a few electronegativities. I don't recall ever getting a table of electronegativities on an exam.
From the structure, you have:
I remember the following electronegativities most because they are fairly patterned:
EN
H
=
2.1
EN
C
=
2.5
EN
N
=
3.0
EN
O
=
3.5
EN
F
=
4.0
EN
Cl
=
3.5
Notice how carbon through fluorine go in increments of
~
0.5
. I believe Pauling made it that way when he determined electronegativities in the '30s.
Δ
EN
C
−
Cl
=
1.0
Δ
EN
C
−
H
=
0.4
Δ
EN
C
−
C
=
0.0
Δ
EN
C
−
O
=
1.0
Δ
EN
O
−
H
=
1.4
So naturally, with the greatest electronegativity difference of
4.0
−
2.5
=
1.5
, the
C
−
F
bond is most polar, i.e. that bond's electron distribution is the most drawn towards the more electronegative compound as compared to the rest.
When the electron distribution is polarized and drawn towards a more electronegative atom, the less electronegative atom has to move inwards because its nucleus was previously favorably attracted to the electrons from the other atom.
That means generally, the greater the electronegativity difference between two atoms is, the shorter you can expect the bond to be, insofar as the electronegative atom is the same size as another comparable electronegative atom.
However, examining actual data, we would see that on average, in conditions without other bond polarizations occuring:
r
C
−
Cl
≈
177 pm
r
C
−
C
≈
154 pm
r
C
−
O
≈
143 pm
r
C
−
F
≈
135 pm
r
C
−
H
≈
109 pm
r
O
−
H
≈
96 pm
So it is not necessarily the least electronegativity difference that gives the longest bond.
Therefore, you cannot simply consider electronegativity. Examining the radii of the atoms, you should notice that chlorine is the biggest atom in the compound.
r
Cl
≈
79 pm
r
C
≈
70 pm
r
H
≈
53 pm
r
O
≈
60 pm
So assuming the answer is truly
C
−
C
, what would have to hold true is that:
The
C
−
F
bond polarization makes the carbon more electropositive (which is true).
The now more electropositive carbon wishes to attract bonding pairs from chlorine closer, thereby shortening the
C
−
Cl
bond, and potentially the
C
−
H
bond (which is probably true).
The shortening of the
C
−
Cl
bond is somehow enough to be shorter than the
C
−
C
bond (this is debatable).
A prediction is not based upon evidence or reliable tests. A prediction is a guess as to what will happen in the future. Forecasts for example are nothing more than prediction, as even with "meteorological evidence", nothing is ever truly sure when in regard to wheather.
So "A"
The amount of heat lost by granite is equal to the amount
of heat gained by water. Therefore their change in enthalpies must be equal.
The opposite in sign means that one is gaining while the other is losing
ΔH granite = - ΔH water
ΔH is the change in enthalpy experienced by a closed object
as it undergoes change in energy. This is expressed mathematically as,
ΔH = m Cp (T2 – T1)
Given this information, we can say that:
12.5 g * 0.790 J / g ˚C * (T2 – 82 ˚C) =
- 25.0 g * 4.18 J / g ˚C
* (T2 – 22 ˚C)
9.875 (T2 – 82) = 104.5 (22 – T2)
9.875 T2 – 809.75 = 2299 – 104.5 T2
114.375 T2 = 3108.75
T2 = 27.18 ˚C
The temperature of 2 objects after reaching thermal
equilibrium is 27.18 ˚<span>C.</span>
Percentage O: 69.54
Percentage N: 30.46
Dividing each percentage by the components molecular weight:
Oxygen: 69.54 / 16 = 4.35
Nitrogen: 30.46 / 14 = 2.18
Ratio of nitrogen to oxygen = 1 : 2
Empircal formula: NO₂
Mass of empirical formula = 46
Repeat units = 92 / 46 = 2
Molecular formula = N₂O₄