2014 Chemistry Exam Solutions

[2NE1]

So 8 marks are gone 
I am desperate to see whether I lose another mark for writing grounding apricots to powder to increase the rate of reaction. Assume my MC matches yours (16C and has not counted Q12 yet), I may lose up to 9 marks already 

Sigh lost like 7-10 marks too depending how harsh they are. What does 110-113 even give you? Raw score wise

[swagsxcboi]

Sigh lost like 7-10 marks too depending how harsh they are. What does 110-113 even give you? Raw score wise

that's pretty good. i'd say deffs 45+ maybe around 47

[2NE1]

that's pretty good. i'd say deffs 45+ maybe around 47

Thanks I really wanted 45+ hope it turns out okay.

[swagsxcboi]

Thanks I really wanted 45+ hope it turns out okay.

lznxl (soz may have spelt it wrong)
Lost 6 marks and got a 50 

[felix-onea]

for question 10a and 11a, can the OH- and H+ be left out since they are spectators to the reaction?
or are they not spectators

[Ya Habibi]

Hi, I believe question 1a section b is wrong. They gave us the delta H for 2mol NH3 reacting, yet the graph below only wanted the enthalpy for 1mol NH3. Am I correct?

[d4m0]

I wonder how many people fell into the trap in the MC chromatography question where the solvent front was actually at 2cm rather than 0cm.

I did
I didn't even look at the origin
why would they even label it that way, it makes no sense lol
I also failed at Q1 as well, I noticed it said reverse on my first read through in reading time but I did the short answer stuff first so I forgot
so yeah a few people hahaha those questions were just silly

[thushan]

Ya Habibi - I see where you are coming from, but it's just a labelling thing; I don't think they specifically mean (1 NH3).

Having said that, if you explicitly wrote your products with the coefficients halved on the products side in the diagram, I'd give full marks.

[jp96]

interested in this too! on the one hand they are technically spectating, but on the other hand, the ions are explicitly mentioned in the question. my instinct would be to pay both as a result.

[Ya Habibi]

I did
I didn't even look at the origin
why would they even label it that way, it makes no sense lol
I also failed at Q1 as well, I noticed it said reverse on my first read through in reading time but I did the short answer stuff first so I forgot
so yeah a few people hahaha those questions were just silly

Yep, I got question 1 MC wrong, too. I had done so many practice exams that it became second nature to do the forward reaction. fml


And thushan, what if they meant to do 1mol NH3? Then at least 85% of the state would get it wrong. It could have been a sneaky thing they tried.

[Kaleidoscope]

It could have been a sneaky thing they tried.

So many sneaky things VCAA did/may have done, I'm going to kill somebody

[2NE1]

lznxl (soz may have spelt it wrong)
Lost 6 marks and got a 50 

Was this last year?

[swagsxcboi]

Was this last year?

yes

[Nguyensanity]

Hi, I believe question 1a section b is wrong. They gave us the delta H for 2mol NH3 reacting, yet the graph below only wanted the enthalpy for 1mol NH3. Am I correct?

With the ammonia activation energy graph question (Section B, Q1) at first I was suspicious about the mol ratio as well, and thought about halving. First of all, I'm pretty sure if we halved the enthalpy it would've actually been less that the activation energy, even with the catalyst, so that probably wouldn't have worked out. Secondly, I'm pretty sure both the y-axis units and the units given in the enthalpy were both KJ/mol - hence there's no need to halve the equation - even the activation energies were given in those units. Sneaky from VCAA though.

[Nguyensanity]

Strike that first point - activation energies would've theoretically halved too, but hopefully the second explanation helps you get my drift.