Tricky Rate Law Question

Started by rah08e
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

rah08e

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I know someone just posted a question like this but...

This question asks you to find the order with respect to B:

Initial [A](M) Initial (M) Initial rate of formation of C(mol/L•min)
2.5 x 10–6 3 x 10–4 5 x 10–3
5 x 10–6 3 x 10–4 1 x 10–2
1 x 10–5 9 x 10–4 1.8 x 10–1


If anyone has advice on how to solve the tricky rate law questions involving a hypothetical 4th line, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
I think this is the same question I solved in the other thread, can you give an example of the hypothetical 4th line question? Probably would be better able to help
 
I know someone just posted a question like this but...

This question asks you to find the order with respect to B:

Initial [A](M) Initial (M) Initial rate of formation of C(mol/L•min)
2.5 x 10–6 3 x 10–4 5 x 10–3
5 x 10–6 3 x 10–4 1 x 10–2
1 x 10–5 3 x 10–4 2 x 10–2
1 x 10–5 9 x 10–4 1.8 x 10–1


If anyone has advice on how to solve the tricky rate law questions involving a hypothetical 4th line, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!


rate = k[A]^x^y

from the data, x = 1, as when you double A, you get twice the rate
so, you can say that if you increase [A] from 5X 10-6 to 1X 10-5, the rate will be doubled.

Makes it a lot easier now doesn't it?

So when B triples, the rate increase 9-fold, therefore the order of B 👍 is 2.
 
rate = k[A]^x^y

from the data, x = 1, as when you double A, you get twice the rate
so, you can say that if you increase [A] from 5X 10-6 to 1X 10-5, the rate will be doubled.

Makes it a lot easier now doesn't it?

So when B triples, the rate increase 9-fold, therefore the order of B 👍 is 2.


lololol wow... thank you for providing a more logical explanation than kaplan. That makes sense.