OCR A2 CHEMISTRY F324 and F325- 14th and 22nd June 2016- OFFICIAL THREAD

Scroll to see replies

Reply 3580

Brandoncarlin

Original post by Clankdroid

sorry my bad, the other I- was in the given equation

No problem :smile:

Reply 3581

aegonsconquest

Original post by k.russell

Bruh, there is no way in hell it's gonna be 100 or even 98 for full ums! It will be like 91/92 for full UMS even that is higher than an average paper, it was not easier than last years paper and what a load of cocky people say on the TSR 'z0mg ez paprer' is not actually what's true. I bet a lot of people dropped marks where they thought they didn't..

It makes sense though, the paper was nearly identical to last years'
last year max ums was 95. I deffo think the boundaries will increase by +1/+2 from last years'. fo sure

Reply 3582

username2221225

Original post by k.russell

I do feel like it was harder than June 2015, which had pretty low grade boundaries.

Reply 3583

smartalan73

Original post by Jm098

-1099

How'd you get that?

-1099 for hydration?

Original post by aegonsconquest

I thought it was the same tier difficulty as last years tbh. ( last year had a few tricky Qs too)

But I think getting an A will deffo require 80+/100 we can agree on that! Right?

Really? I cannot believe you're saying this ****... 80+ for an A lol! It's never been more than 80 for an A and I certainly wouldn't say that was the easiest EEE paper ever.. if you ask me, it will be a little lower than last year, maybe last years boundaries shifted down by 1 or 2

Reply 3586

MrKmas508

It was okay, I think I may have met my offer for uni chemistry wise.

Reply 3587

Jm098

Original post by smartalan73

How'd you get that?

(2x340) + lattice enthalpy + 24

Reply 3588

aegonsconquest

guys you know the empirical formula, did you have to put a +2 charge?!?!

Reply 3589

k.russell

Original post by aegonsconquest

It makes sense though, the paper was nearly identical to last years'
last year max ums was 95. I deffo think the boundaries will increase by +1/+2 from last years'. fo sure

just wait mate, you haven't had it marked yet lol

Reply 3590

sakuraton

Original post by aegonsconquest

guys you know the empirical formula, did you have to put a +2 charge?!?!

Well I am screwed

Reply 3591

anndz3007

Original post by MrZebraCookie

It's that I think. I wrote mine in complex form (kicking myself)

when i read the question, i was like bruh you want an empirical formula of a complex ions, bruh what do you mean :colondollar:

Reply 3592

lawlieto

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4180862

Poll

Reply 3593

lai812matthew

Original post by aegonsconquest

guys you know the empirical formula, did you have to put a +2 charge?!?!

it is 2- not 2+ because i got that wrong also.

Reply 3594

megafidget

Original post by aegonsconquest

guys you know the empirical formula, did you have to put a +2 charge?!?!

-2 no? cos of the two 2- bidentate ligands but yeh you did :/

Reply 3595

Jm098

reckon it would be alright with no brackets and the 2- charge at the end?

Reply 3596

aegonsconquest

Original post by k.russell

But you're not taking into consideration how subjective papers can be for people.

There will be a change imo, and it will likely result in an increase of +1 or more. Im saying this is in the most unbiased way, its pointless having wishful thinking.