Can a resonance structure have an unpaired electron?

[onedirection]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I just saw a question with a resonance structure with two unpaired electrons on adjacent atoms between which a double bond was present.

Is this a legitimate structure?

Question was which is not a resonance structure

I picked C because of the N=H
But I noticed in D you had those unpaired electrons...does that mean that is a valid resonance structure?

 

[monkeyvokes]

wow, guess you have to go with C because it's missing the +?

 

[Romz]

wow, guess you have to go with C because it's missing the +?

+ 1 wtf is this question.


I would've durped and chosen B based on the fact that C has a double bond to a H...

 

[gettheleadout]

Yes, you can have radicals present in resonance structures, see the resonance structures for something like nitric oxide.

Also, just to be certain, the keyed answer was C, correct?

 

[bmoredoc]

I think the 2 dots represent a covalent bond which can be used in place of a line (they mean the same thing). The structure is simply an amide.

 

[gettheleadout]

I think the 2 dots represent a covalent bond which can be used in place of a line (they mean the same thing). The structure is simply an amide.

Nothing would ever use mixed representations of bonds, and the dots are too far apart anyway. It's pretty clear it's a diradical, IMO.

 

[blglsc]

Answer C has 2 bonds on the H, thus you go with that one.