Suppose 0.829g of zinc chloride is dissolved in 100.mL of a 0.60M aqueous solution of potassium carbonate. Calculate the final molarity of chloride anion in the solution. You can assume the volume of the solution doesn't change when the zinc chloride is dissolved in it. Be sure your answer has the correct number of significant digits.

Molarity of   anion in solution is 0.122 M.

Explanation:

Chemical Reaction:

As KCl is a strong electrolyte therefore it dissociates completely in solution. Hence present in final solution is equal to present in 0.829 g of  .

Molar mass of = 136.286 g/mol

So, 0.829 g of = moles of

1 mol of contains 2 moles of .

Hence number of moles of in solution = moles

So, molarity of in solution = [(number of moles of in solution)/(volume of solution in mL)]

= M

= 0.122 M

the mass of the cathode increases because ions from the solution get reduced to atoms and become part of the cathode.

explanation:

subscribe to my yt channel yoongi jmz

follow my insta yoongi_jams

stan bts

1. the question asks the most appropriate, which seems to rule out "all of the above." your choice appears to be the correct one.

2. the protocol described is good for identifying correlation, but not cause and effect. for cause/effect, you need to devise a protocol that will assign the treatment (or not) to groups that have essentially the same "demographics" with respect to all the other variables. your choice regarding control group seems appropriate. random assignment of treatment (choice d) may be appropriate also. (i think you can argue that b and d are just different descriptions of the same method.)

3. d will randomize the birds, but may not guarantee there are 10 in each group. e will do both, so seems the better choice.

comment on question 2

based on the problem statement, it seems clear that confident, attentive drivers are more likely to use daytime running lights. so, the protocol might need to be devised in such a way that the lights would be turned on or off without the driver's knowledge. (an attentive driver will figure it out.) assigning a confident, attentive driver to a group required to drive without running lights might mess with his/her confidence and attentiveness. you don't want your experiment to do that. (nor do you want the experiment to subject a driver to greater risk of accident as a consequence of driving without running lights.) experiments involving human safety are always problematic.