"confirmed" ExamKrackers Errata

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

DataWhore

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
i know a lot of people like to complain about how EK books have quite a bit of errata in them.

these are the "official" errata found behind that mysterious hidden ek forums.

surprisingly, there are no "confirmed" errata in the 1001s posted. interesting. maybe there arent any?

Members don't see this ad.
 

Attachments

  • errataEK.txt
    4.2 KB · Views: 660
i know a lot of people like to complain about how EK books have quite a bit of errata in them.

these are the "official" errata found behind that mysterious hidden ek forums.

surprisingly, there are no "confirmed" errata in the 1001s posted. interesting. maybe there arent any?

There are actually quiet a bit...
 
not sure if this is the right place to post, but i just wanted some confirmation of the error i think i just found. (to ease my conscience.)

on page 77 of the organic chem book there is a question (69).
ethylamine can be alkylated with iodomethane in the presence of a strong base. the strong base is needed to
a) neutralize strong acid ethyl-methylamine that is formed during the reaction.
b) neutralize the strong acid HI that is formed during the reaction.
c) protonate the methyl group
d) deprotonate the methyl group


...

...
the answer is b) according to them. because in a) ethylmethlamine is not acidic. that is true, but it doesn't form that, it forms the acidic form of that. why do i think this?
http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/351/Carey5th/Ch22/ch22-3-1.html
look at the mechanism.
that also makes b) a good idea, but not as pertinent to the mechanism (H-X would only form if you didn't have a strong base there).

Please tell me who is more stupid (me or them). Thanks!
(I would post on the examkrackers website but I dislike paying money).
 
Top