Destroyer 2011 Gen chem #244

[wizi]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hi guys,

I have a question on #244.

Q: which statement is false?
A: The strontium cation is larger than the sulfur anion since negative ions gain electrons?


I think this statement is right.

I do know that when an element gains e-, it becomes bigger but this is not the case for Sr and S, isnt it?

Strontium is in period 5 while sulfur is in 3. If Sr lost 2 electrons, its still larger than sulfur except when Sr lost more than 18 electrons, it will be smaller which is not right. What do you guys think?

 

[seunglim87]

Hi guys,

I have a question on #244.

Q: which statement is false?
A: The strontium cation is larger than the sulfur anion since negative ions gain electrons?


I think this statement is right.

I do know that when an element gains e-, it becomes bigger but this is not the case for Sr and S, isnt it?

Strontium is in period 5 while sulfur is in 3. If Sr lose 2 electrons, its still larger than sulfur except when Sr lose more than 18 electrons, it will be smaller which is not right. What do you guys think?

well, i wanna see the other choices, but the wording of the statment doesn't even make sense, therefore i would say it is false. if Sr is bigger than S, the reason wouldnt be because negative ions gain electrons.

 

[johnnyt09]

Strontium is larger because there are goining to be more electrons taking up space.

 

[yappy]

I agree with the posters. It isnt that those two statements are false - it's that one doesnt explain the other.

"The strontium cation is larger than the sulfur anion since negative ions gain electrons"

Negative ions do gain electrons and are larger than the neutral species. But this doesnt account for why the strontium cation is larger than the sulfur anion. If anything it makes sulfur larger decreasing the relitive size difference between the st and s.

 

[p2vanlon]

I think there was some sort of typo on this question....only thing that explains it.

 

[FLOSS UR TEETH]

From what I understand, electrons are bulky and take up space like johnnyt said. Therefore, generally the more negatively charged the species, the larger it may be. We can also look at the atomic radius trends, which increase as we move towards Fr.

 

[p2vanlon]

I think the part that we are all stuggling with is that Sr+2 would have the electron structure of Kr (36 electrons) while S-2 would have the electron structure of Ar (18 electrons).

Otherwise yes it would make sense if instead of Sr they used Calcium +2. Just a little confusing is all.

From what I understand, electrons are bulky and take up space like johnnyt said. Therefore, generally the more negatively charged the species, the larger it may be. We can also look at the atomic radius trends, which increase as we move towards Fr.

 

[FLOSS UR TEETH]

I think the part that we are all stuggling with is that Sr+2 would have the electron structure of Kr (36 electrons) while S-2 would have the electron structure of Ar (18 electrons).

Otherwise yes it would make sense if instead of Sr they used Calcium +2. Just a little confusing is all.

What is the actual question being asked? I am confused lol