Which Molecule Has Three Charge-Minimized Resonance Structures?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying which molecule among the options has three charge-minimized resonance structures. Participants suggest using VSEPR theory and drawing Lewis structures for each molecule to determine resonance. The consensus indicates that SO32- is initially considered, but further analysis reveals that it is not the correct answer. Instead, another molecule from the list is confirmed to have three resonance structures with minimized formal charges. The key takeaway is the importance of drawing and analyzing Lewis structures to accurately identify resonance forms.
kayleech
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'm having trouble figuring out which of the following molecules can be described using three charge-minimized resonance structures. Does anyone have any idea which molecules this would include?

a. SF4
b. SO3
c. SO32-
d. HSO4-
e. SO2+
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suggestion: Use VSEPR to find out their bonding structures, or type their names into Google to save time, from there you should be able to work towards the final answer
 
I did that and I came up with SO32- being the only answer.

Is that correct or am I doing something wrong?
 
If you are looking for one of your choices to have 3 resonance structures, it would be best to draw the Lewis structures for EACH one a) - e) There is only one (and its not
SO32-) that has 3 resonance structures and the formal charges would be minimized for each resonance of that choice.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...
Back
Top