Do you see a problem with the wording of this chemistry question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smulc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemistry
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a chemistry question regarding the geometry of the complex [Mn(DMSO)6](ClO4)3 and its relation to a crystal field energy-level diagram. The original poster expresses confusion about how to use the provided information about the complex's geometry to create the diagram, questioning if the wording of the question is problematic. They clarify that their tutor has confirmed their understanding of the actual question, indicating that their concern lies solely with the phrasing. Ultimately, they realize that their interpretation of "account for" may be incorrect, suggesting that the question is valid and they are overthinking it. The discussion highlights the importance of precise language in academic questions and the potential for misinterpretation.
smulc
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
I don't need help with the actual question, I just wanted to know if anyone else thinks there's an issue with this question of it it's just me. I've spoke to my tutor and he's confirmed what I need to do so I'm fine on that front, but I was curious if I'm just interpreting the wording incorrectly. So this is the relevant bit...

In [Mn(DMSO)6](ClO4)3, coordination to manganese is via oxygen. The complex is six-coordinate, with two bonds that are opposite each other being longer than the other four.

(a) With reference to a suitably labelled crystal field energy-level diagram, account for the geometry of the complex.

So based on the question giving me information about the geometry of the complex, I can draw an energy level diagram. But the question has already told me the geometry of the complex. I just can't see how it makes sense to use my diagram that I constructed based on information I've been given about the geometry of the complex to account for the geometry of the complex. Does that make sense? Is the question fine and I'm just over complicating it?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would interpret it as "consider the geometry of the complex in order to create the diagram" (because it will influence this diagram?).
 
  • Like
Likes smulc
Okay thanks. I think I'm just interpreting "account for" in the wrong way.
 

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry A few questions on an irreversible adiabatic expansion of an ideal gas
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry How do we use enthalpy of formation in this calculation?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Chemistry How do we know ##BF_3## has Lewis structure but ##Al_2S_3## does not?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Coordination Chemistry and Complexes
Replies
5
Views
6K
Chemistry How to understand the zeroth law through these specific equations?
Replies
3
Views
2K
New Member Introduction - JD Longmire
Replies
2
Views
266
Programs Help me decide: physics or chemistry?
Replies
43
Views
7K
Is there a greater answer for naming D-Block elements the way they do?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculate the "surface energy" of succesively smaller cubes
Replies
3
Views
3K
Implementing “Ab initio” approach in molecular mechanics method
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top