Complete combustion of 1.5 g of fructose a sugar that contains carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen yields 2.2 g of carbon dioxide and .9 g of water. determine the empirical formula of fructose

- .

Solution:- From given grams of carbon dioxide and water we could calculate their moles. using mole ratio, moles of C and H are calculated. These moles of C and H are converted to grams and then we subtract the sum of grams of C and H from given mass of compound to calculate the grams of oxygen. Grams of oxygen are converted to moles and then we find out the mole ratio of C, H and O that gives us empirical formula.

The calculations are as follows:

moles of carbon dioxide = = 0.05 mole

moles of water = = 0.05 mole

has one C means the mole ratio of to C is 1:1. So, moles of C would also be 0.05.

has two H means the mole ratio of to H is 1:2. So, moles of H would be 2 times the moles of which is 0.10.

Let's convert moles of C and H to their grams as:

grams of C = = 0.6 g

grams of H = = 0.1g

grams of O = 1.5 - (0.6 + 0.1)

grams of O = 1.5 - 0.7 = 0.9 g

moles of O = = 0.056 moles

Let's calculate the mole ratio now:

= 1

= 2

= 1

From the mole ratio, the empirical formula of fructose is .

a. a clone will be physically identical to the original, but won’t be genetically identical

have a good day!

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.