Haloform on DAT?

[Kahr]

I recently finished Chad's videos and started going through the organic section in DAT destroyer, ran across a question involving haloform (iodoform) in a synthesis. Thought to myself that I didn't remember Chad going over this at all, decided to skim through KBB and couldn't find anything on it there either. Even checking the ADA DAT guide it wasn't listed as something covered specifically, though this is no guarantee of course.

Can anyone verify that they saw anything related to haloform reactions on the DAT? I'll probably go over it regardless, even if it is just Destroyer going overboard.

Also since I'm on the topic of orgo on the DAT, mass spec is definitely not something anyone has seen, right? I ask because it's definitely not listed in the spectroscopy topics of the ADA guide; just a curious check to see if they're adhering to that or not.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sbdento]

I was surprised when I saw haloform in Destroyer too so I studied it a little bit. I think you should learn the basics of ms like, peaks correspondence to most stable carbocation, etc. Neither haloform nor ms showed up on my DAT.

When I would come across weird topics I would always touch up on them a little bit at the least, better safe than sorry...

 

[Odontos2015]

I can't remember the specific questions I had on the DAT. However, I do remember the haloform showing up on several practice exams. We also spent a lot of time going over the mechanism in O-chem 2 lecture. With that being said, I would definitely know it for the DAT. It's not a very complicated reaction.

 

[rmm30]

If you have the 2011 version of destroyer it may be explained in the "Reagents Test" section. Haloform tests for the presence of a methyl group on a ketone. mechanism is long winded but rxn is simple. I went through odyssey and destroyer ochem and every rxn I was unfamiliar with I wrote down in a separate notebook. I have about 20 new rxns beyond chad now. I'm pretty sure I am wasting my time with crap like this, especially since I'm reading breakdowns now where people got 4-5 rxn questions.

 

[Kahr]

If you have the 2011 version of destroyer it may be explained in the "Reagents Test" section. Haloform tests for the presence of a methyl group on a ketone. mechanism is long winded but rxn is simple. I went through odyssey and destroyer ochem and every rxn I was unfamiliar with I wrote down in a separate notebook. I have about 20 new rxns beyond chad now. I'm pretty sure I am wasting my time with crap like this, especially since I'm reading breakdowns now where people got 4-5 rxn questions.

I know what you mean dude, it's driving me out of my fscking mind!! Everyone is saying all this stuff about the ochem section of the DAT being too easy/simple, but I feel so paranoid, and can't just skip stuff, all because of that little voice going, "what if that one thing is on there and you SKIPPED it!?!" AWWWW X_X;;;;;

And no, I have 2010 destroyer, ordered in december, guess they were trying to get rid of the copies of 2010 they had left :/ Oh well.

 

[Odontos2015]

I still strongly advise that you learn the haloform reaction, as well as anything else covered in destroyer, kaplan, ACS, or your o-chem lecture. It is all fair game.

 

[Odontos2015]

Can anyone verify that they saw anything related to haloform reactions on the DAT? I'll probably go over it regardless, even if it is just Destroyer going overboard.

Nobody is allowed to say what they saw on the actual DAT. I can't even remember what questions I had. However, I do remember some being as or more specific than the haloform reaction. "Going overboard" will do nothing but improve your score, given that anything from the standard organic chemistry textbook can show up.

 

[Kahr]

Nobody is allowed to say what they saw on the actual DAT. I can't even remember what questions I had. However, I do remember some being as or more specific than the haloform reaction. "Going overboard" will do nothing but improve your score, given that anything from the standard organic chemistry textbook can show up.

Going to have to disagree with you here. Considering they provide a guideline listing the content of each section of the DAT. If they were to make everything in an organic chemistry textbook fair game, they would simply say: anything in such-and-such organic chemistry textbook. If I do see Mass Spec. on the DAT, I'm going to happily complain to the ADA, and hope they add it to the spectroscopy content of their guide, or at least add "etc" or "and others" or something, as they do for other topics.

In regard to the content of the DAT. Based on the wording (paraphrased) in the guide regarding testing regulations, you are only not allowed to share specific test information (questions) or content that could provide an unfair advantage to another test taker(s).

Based on what you're saying (regarding anything in a textbook being fair game), saying that you saw haloform on the test, is not information that provides an unfair advantage to anyone, since it is in the textbook and available to anyone studying. Going by my idea of what's testable (straight out of the ADA DAT guideline):

Individual Reactions of the Major Functional Groups and Combinations of Reactions to Synthesize Compounds - alkene/alkyne, aromatic, substitution/elimination, aldehyde/ ketone, carboxylic acids and derivatives

Haloform reactions fall under reactions of ketone or carboxylic acids and derivatives, and as such, there is still no unfair advantage being conferred, since we are supposed to read that guide and know to study these reactions because they could be on the test.

Anyway, there are a lot of DAT breakdowns that expound on all sorts of general information regarding what was seen on the DAT, but for the most part, this is all public information in the DAT guide that everyone has the ability to know before the test.

I appreciate your intentions, and I totally agree with you regarding "over-studying", however your comment regarding a standard ochem textbook is not comforting, and does not alleviate paranoia, so please leave that out next time.