Back
to top
Why doesn't MS allow a secondary carbocation to be drawn?
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
tsr3129
Badges:
0
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Hi everyone,
I've attached a question and mark scheme from the June 2011 paper which I'm having trouble with.
I don't understand why the mark scheme wants the tertiary carbocation to be drawn out. For instance, why don't they allow the secondary carbocation to be drawn out? After all they give the same product.
Thanks!
I've attached a question and mark scheme from the June 2011 paper which I'm having trouble with.
I don't understand why the mark scheme wants the tertiary carbocation to be drawn out. For instance, why don't they allow the secondary carbocation to be drawn out? After all they give the same product.
Thanks!
0
reply
trasitszy
Badges:
10
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
The secondary carbocation would have only 2 Alkyl groups attatched (+1 hydrogen)
The tertiary carbocation is formed because the reactive carbon has 3 alkyl groups attached so it must be what forms.
Sorry if I am missing something obvious or anything! I am brain dead from revising chem all day
Good luck tomorrow
The tertiary carbocation is formed because the reactive carbon has 3 alkyl groups attached so it must be what forms.
Sorry if I am missing something obvious or anything! I am brain dead from revising chem all day
Good luck tomorrow
1
reply
trasitszy
Badges:
10
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
(Original post by tsr3129)
Hi everyone,
I've attached a question and mark scheme from the June 2011 paper which I'm having trouble with.
I don't understand why the mark scheme wants the tertiary carbocation to be drawn out. For instance, why don't they allow the secondary carbocation to be drawn out? After all they give the same product.
Thanks!
Hi everyone,
I've attached a question and mark scheme from the June 2011 paper which I'm having trouble with.
I don't understand why the mark scheme wants the tertiary carbocation to be drawn out. For instance, why don't they allow the secondary carbocation to be drawn out? After all they give the same product.
Thanks!
0
reply
Necrosyrtes
Badges:
4
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by tsr3129)
Hi everyone,
I've attached a question and mark scheme from the June 2011 paper which I'm having trouble with.
I don't understand why the mark scheme wants the tertiary carbocation to be drawn out. For instance, why don't they allow the secondary carbocation to be drawn out? After all they give the same product.
Thanks!
Hi everyone,
I've attached a question and mark scheme from the June 2011 paper which I'm having trouble with.
I don't understand why the mark scheme wants the tertiary carbocation to be drawn out. For instance, why don't they allow the secondary carbocation to be drawn out? After all they give the same product.
Thanks!
(Original post by trasitszy)
Also, even if a secondary carbocation could be formed the tertiary one would be the major product as it is more stable.
Also, even if a secondary carbocation could be formed the tertiary one would be the major product as it is more stable.
0
reply
tsr3129
Badges:
0
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
