Answers
To draw the alcohol that is oxidized to give the product shown, it is important to first identify the product. However, since the product is not mentioned in the question, it is difficult to provide a specific answer.
Nonetheless, here are general steps to follow:Step 1: Identify the alcohol molecule that you want to oxidize. For example, let's use ethanol, CH3CH2OH, as an example. Step 2: Determine the oxidation state of each atom in the alcohol molecule. In ethanol, the carbon atom bonded to the hydroxyl group has an oxidation state of -2, while the other carbon atom has an oxidation state of -3. The oxygen atom in the hydroxyl group has an oxidation state of -2, while the hydrogen atoms have an oxidation state of +1.
Step 3: To oxidize the alcohol, add an oxidizing agent, such as potassium dichromate or sodium dichromate, and an acid catalyst, such as sulfuric acid. In the presence of an oxidizing agent and an acid catalyst, ethanol is oxidized to ethanal, CH3CHO. The oxidation state of the carbon atom in the carbonyl group is +1, while the other carbon atom still has an oxidation state of -3. The oxygen atom in the carbonyl group has an oxidation state of 0. Step 4: Draw the structure of the starting alcohol and the product, ethanal. Include all hydrogen atoms in your drawing. Be sure to show any changes in oxidation state in your drawing. Make sure your drawing is clear and legible.
To know more about molecule visit :
https://brainly.com/question/32298217
#SPJ11
Related Questions
differences of a peace officer's authority to make an arrest compared to a citizen's authority to make an arrest.
Answers
Making a citizens arrest may vary my state, but we will use California as a reference.
California Penal Code 837 PC allows any private individual to make a citizen's arrest However, the private individual witnessed the crime.
Examples of when a citizens arrest can occur: When a public crime/offence is committed in their presence, a person has committed a felony, and the person has reasonable cause to believe that they committed this act.
An example of a citizens arrest: You are shopping in a store when you notice a woman steal and walk out. You may then detain her until the police arrive.
When making a citizens arrest, you CANNOT:
- Use force to detain the suspect
- Create danger that may harm others or the suspect
- Search the suspect
- Chase the suspect in risky situations
However, when Police are considered to make an arrest they need probable cause. This does not need to be witnessed by the officer(s).
When Police have enough evidence to make an arrest, they can:
- Use force to arrest the suspect
- Search the suspect
- Use lethal force if needed
- Chase after the suspect
These reflect a few differences law enforcement and citizens can do when arresting a suspect.
in 1967, the supreme court ruled in loving v. virginia that:group of answer choicesschool prayer was unconstitutionalsuspects could refuse to cooperate with policethose in police custody had certain rightsstate laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional
Answers
In 1967, the supreme court ruled in loving v. Virginia that: the group of answer choice school prayer was the attitude or belief that made many reject the decision in the Loving v. Virginia case the anti-miscegenation.
In the Loving v. Virginia case, the supreme court held in 1967 that: school prayer was the attitude or belief that drove many people to oppose the ruling anti-miscegenation.
Anti-miscegenation is the right response. Being anti-miscegenation is opposing interracial relationships or marriage. Before 1967, it was against the law in some locations for African-Americans to date Caucasians. However, this was legal in earlier eras. Thanks to the Supreme Court, it changed.
Learn more about Virginia here:
https://brainly.com/question/19497558
#SPJ4
8. reserved
Reserved blank
Answers
Read this passage from the Articles of Confederation:
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual
friendship and intercourse among the people of the
different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each
of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from
Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens in the several states.
Which founding principle of the articles is reflected in the passage?
Answers
Answer:
Making citizens of the states also citizens of the Union.
Explanation:
Through this passage, and specifically by establishing that all the free inhabitants of the states would enjoy the same rights in the other states in which they were not residents.
Thus, by guaranteeing a unity of rights throughout the territory of the Union, the Articles of Confederation sought to reaffirm the legal unity of all the states, in order to form not only a country with legal security for its inhabitants, but a nation with unified legal criteria at the government level.
Answer:
The founding principle of the Articles of Confederation that is reflected in the passage is A. Making citizens of the states also citizens of the union.
Explanation:
The passage outlines that the free inhabitants of each state, except for certain groups like paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, would be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. This reflects the idea of creating a union of states with shared rights and responsibilities, rather than a loose confederation of independent entities.
A party seeks to introduce evidence of a written statement made before the written contract was entered into that directly contradicts a provision in that contract.
a. True
b. False
Answers
brainliest???
Farrokh and Scheherezade Sharabianlou signed a purchase agreement to buy a building owned by Berenstein Associates for $2 million. They deposited $115,000 toward the purchase. Before the deal closed, an environmental assessment of the property indicated the presence of chemicals used in dry cleaning. This substantially reduced the property’s value. Do the Sharabianlous have a good argument for the return of their deposit and rescission of the contract Explain your answer. [Sharabianlou v. Karp, 181 Cal.App.4th 1133, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 (1st Dist. 2010)] (See Agreements That Lack Consideration.)
Answers
Here rescission is appropriate because the contracting parties were mutually mistaken as to the condition of the property. The environmental contamination substantially reduced its value. Hence, the award of damages to the Berensteins was reversed and the Sharabianlous have to be refunded their deposit.
What is rescission?Rescission occurs when a contract is declared void and ceases to be accepted as binding by the law. The courts have the authority to release non-liable parties from their contractual commitments and, when practical, will work to put them back in the same situation as before the contract was made.
Rescission is intended to restore the parties as nearly as possible to their former positions and to bring about substantial justice by adjusting the equities between the parties. Rescission does not occur if a contract is affirmed; it means the contract is repudiated. Here rescission is appropriate. The environmental contamination substantially reduced its value.
When an agreement to purchase property is subject to rescission, "the seller must refund all payments received in connection with the sale."
Therefore, Sharabianlous have a good argument for the return of their deposit and rescission of the contract.
To learn more about rescission, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/28012454
#SPJ1
Explain when, or under what circumstances, correctional officials may legally use force. Emphasise the requirements that should be complied with for the force to be deemed lawful and provide examples to illustrate your understanding
Answers
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the Food Additives Amendment?a. The amendment required FDA approval before an additive could be used in food.b. The amendment placed the burden on the manufacturer to prove additive's safety for the intended use.c. Both of the statements above are correct.d. None of these.
Answers
b and c. Both of the statements above are correct. The Food Additives Amendment required FDA approval before an additive could be used in food and also placed the burden on the manufacturer to prove the additive's safety for the intended use.
The Food Additives Amendment places a burden on the maker to demonstrate the safety of the additive for the intended application, and it also needs FDA approval before an additive can be used in food. Before an additive can be used in food, the Food Additives Amendment requires FDA clearance, and it also puts the onus on the maker to demonstrate the additive's suitability for the intended use.
To know more about Food Additives
https://brainly.com/question/31282432
#SPJ11
16.
The Founding Fathers built into the Constitution the principle of
to make sure that no one branch of the federal government
gained too much power over the other two.
A. separation of powers
B. checks and balances
C. inherent rights of individuals
D. states rights
E government by the people
Answers
Answer:
system of checks and balances
The system of checks and balances in government was developed to ensure that no one branch of government would become too powerful.
The act of Fifth Amendment may be used by the prosecution to imply an accused person's guilt.
Answers
Answer:
false
Explanation:
i just did the test and picked true and thats WRONG
Answer:
False!!!
Explanation:
Which of these is NOT a reason why a dirt or gravel road can be
dangerous?
A. Your tires are more likely to be punctured
B. There can be gravel or dust kicked back onto your windshield
C. It means you are off the GPS network which is dangerous
D. It’s most likely for your vehicle to lose traction
Answers
Answer:
B. There can be gravel or dust kicked back onto your windshield
Explanation:
Losing the track of a GPS network is not a dangerous for driving on a gravel road or dirt.
What is a gravel road?Gravel road is a road, the upper surface of which is covered with gravel and small crushed stones. There is risk of tires getting punctured, or vehicle to lose traction while driving on such roads.
Hence, option C holds true regarding a gravel road.
Learn more about a gravel road here:
https://brainly.com/question/5215737
#SPJ2
Anyone know the answer to this?
Answers
Why is it important to keep legal correspondence short?
Answers
Answer:
because that if there were no law there would be Robers all in the world
Which constitutional provision forbids conflict between state and federal laws?
Supremacy Clause
Habeas Corpus
Elastic Clause
Ex Post Facto
Explain your reasoning for choosing this answer:
Answers
Answer:
doctrine of preemption
Explanation:
Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict.Jun 2, 2017
"Supremacy Clause" constitutional provision forbids conflict between state and federal laws. Correct option is a.
The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and it states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties take precedence over any conflicting state laws. This ensures that there is uniformity in the application and enforcement of federal laws across all states and prevents conflicts or inconsistencies between state and federal regulations.
To know more about constitutional:
https://brainly.com/question/4555568
#SPJ6
4. What is the term for powers shared by both state and federal governments? a. Declared powers b. Concurrent powers c. Relegated powers d. Representative powers.
Answers
Answer:
Concurrent powers
Explanation:
brainly Everyone working in the United States is required by law to have a work permit. False False True True
Answers
"Everyone working in the United States is required by law to have a work permit," the correct answer is: False
Does Everyone working in the United States is required by law to have a work permit?While it is true that many individuals working in the United States are required to have work permits, not everyone falls under this requirement. The work permit, commonly known as an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or work visa, is typically required for foreign nationals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents (green card holders). They need work permits to legally work in the United States.
U.S. citizens and permanent residents do not need work permits as they have the legal right to work in the country. However, they may need to provide proof of their citizenship or residency status when starting a new job.
It's important to note that immigration and work authorization laws can be complex, so individual circumstances may vary. It's always best to consult with an immigration attorney or the appropriate government agencies for specific advice and guidance.
Learn more about work permit at https://brainly.com/question/5084657
#SPJ1
The ___________________ rule demands that any items or evidence gathered during an illegal search of a person's private property be excluded as evidence against the defendant at the time of trial.
Answers
Answer:
The exclusionary rule
Explanation:
the decision in Mappy v. Ohio declared that evidence that is obtained through an illegal search or seizure can not be used as evidence and must be excluded. This means that if an officer finds evidence of a crime on you but does not announce Miranda rights before searching you, then the evidence found from your crime can not be used against you in a court.
Why do communal cells cause problems?
Answers
Answer:
First offenders can easily be harmed by hardened offenders.
Explanation:
First offenders are people that have done a small or minor crime. Such as debt, reckless driving while drinking or etc. So if they put a person who has done a small offense in a cell with another person that has committed a murder or an assault to harm another person, or let's say a heavy offense. That person who done a small offense will have a chance of possibly dying or having a injury and will not be able to return home safely or in the state they were in when they came.
You are the prosecutor on a domestic violence-related murder. A husband brutally stabbed his wife more than 20 times. The first responding officer placed the husband into custody after arriving on the crime scene. The officer questioned the man about what happened. The man confesses to the officer at the scene that he had killed his wife because she had caught him cheating, and she was going to divorce him.
During your pre-trial preparation, you have a meeting with the officer. He tells you that he did not advise the husband of his Miranda Rights after taking him into custody, but before asking him questions. As an experienced prosecutor, you know that this might be an issue during the trial. You know of some legal loopholes that might allow you to get the confession entered into evidence, but only if the officer tells the truth that he did not read the Miranda Rights. During the trial, the defense attorney cross-examines the officer and asks, "Officer, did you read my client the Miranda Warnings before you interrogated him?"
There is NO video or other evidence to support or contradict whether the officer read the Miranda Warnings or not. The officer testifies that yes, he did read the Miranda Warnings. You know that the officer is lying on the witness stand. If you say something, you know that the confession will be thrown out, and the entire case will be tainted. You know that most likely that the defendant will be found not guilty and set free. If you say nothing, then the man will be convicted and sent to prison for the brutal murder. Ethically, what should you do?
Answers
As an experienced prosecutor, it is important to follow ethical rules. Ethically, it would be appropriate to inform the court of the officer's lie regarding the reading of the Miranda Warnings.
Here are some reasons to support this ethical decision:
If the officer lied, it would indicate that the confession was not voluntary because the defendant was not warned about his right to remain silent.The court would be more likely to dismiss the case if it became aware that an officer had lied under oath about Miranda Warnings.
In court, the prosecutor's primary duty is to seek justice, not to obtain convictions at all costs.There is no ethical dilemma since there is only one correct answer. The prosecutor must disclose the officer's testimony and allow the court to determine the credibility of the officer's testimony regarding Miranda Warnings.
To know more about ethical visit
https://brainly.com/question/30090411
#SPJ11
Paula could not reach an agreement with the irs at her appeals conference and has just received a 90-day letter. If she wants to litigate the issue but does not have sufficient cash to pay the proposed deficiency, what is her best court choice?.
Answers
Answer:She's should ask for appeal
Explanation:
brainliest
it is a good idea when you are driving on wet pavement to change lanes quickly
Answers
policies that take anomie theory insights into account would focus upon reentry as a means of addressing the potential for delinquency. a. true b. false
Answers
True, Anomie theory suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in deviant behavior when they experience a sense of normlessness or a disconnection from society's values and norms.
One way to address this potential for delinquency is through reentry policies that aim to reintegrate individuals back into society after being incarcerated. By providing support and resources for successful reentry, individuals are less likely to feel disconnected from society and more likely to adhere to societal norms and values.
Such policies might include job training programs, mental health services, and housing assistance. Additionally, policies that take into account the unique needs of individuals who have been incarcerated, such as addressing trauma or addiction, can also contribute to successful reentry and a reduced risk of delinquency.
Therefore, policies that consider anomie theory insights can be an effective means of addressing the potential for delinquency among individuals who have been incarcerated.
To know more about Anomie theory visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31239209
#SPJ11
in what way can victims of crime be better assisted and empowered in the criminal justice system?
Answers
Answer:
By having strong evidences mostly regarding his case or/and witnesses of course
Explanation:
how would you fix the us bail system
Answers
Answer:
I wouldn't 'fix' the bail system. I would terminate it completely. For many obvious reasons. When someone is arrested they arn't arrested for just going about their day, buying smoothies and what not. They've done something. And they shouldn't be granted they're freedom just because someone has enough money to pay for it. I think its wrong.
Explanation:
Hope this helps :)
How do drivers who have a physical dissability compensate for their dissabilityy
Answers
Answer:
Adapted Vehicles, & etc.
Explanation:
Drivers who have a physical disability may compensate for their disability in various ways, depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Some common methods of compensation include:
Adapted vehicles: Many drivers with physical disabilities use vehicles that have been adapted to their specific needs. For example, a driver with a lower limb disability may use a car with hand controls or a wheelchair-accessible van.Prosthetic devices: Drivers with limb amputations or other physical impairments may use prosthetic devices to help them operate a vehicle. For example, a driver with a missing left hand may use a prosthetic device that attaches to the steering wheel to help with steering.Assistive technology: There are a variety of assistive technologies available to help drivers with physical disabilities. For example, some drivers may use voice-activated controls, touchscreens, or other devices to operate their vehicle.Training and education: Drivers with physical disabilities may undergo specialized training and education to help them compensate for their disability. This may include training on how to use assistive technology or specialized driving techniques.Medical treatment: In some cases, drivers with physical disabilities may receive medical treatment or physical therapy to help them compensate for their disability. For example, a driver with a spinal cord injury may undergo physical therapy to improve their upper body strength and coordination.The founder and director of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyons, France. Developed a principle about the transfer of trace evidence is _____
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
fingerprints?
Who is the complainant in a sexual assault case ?
Answers
Answer:
the one whom was assaulted ?
Explanation:
He sent me a trailer load of wishes what figure of speech is used
Answers
personification type of metaphor/simile
How did FDR differ from Progressive Era foreign policy? Defend your answer with specific evidence
Answers
FDR's foreign policy, shaped by the Great Depression and World War II, differed from the Progressive Era by emphasizing domestic recovery and international cooperation.
FDR's foreign policy approach aimed to address the economic crisis domestically while adopting a more pragmatic stance internationally. He implemented the Good Neighbor Policy, which sought to improve relations with Latin American countries, moving away from direct interventionism. FDR also emphasized collective security and international cooperation through initiatives like the establishment of the United Nations. His foreign policy focused on balancing global stability, advancing democratic values, and addressing economic and security challenges through diplomacy and alliances.
Learn more about FDR's foreign policy here:
https://brainly.com/question/9631442
#SPJ11
Provide at least two of the arguments in favor of capital punishment and two of the arguments againat capital punishment. Which argument do you think is most persuasive and why?
Answers
Capital punishment has long sparked heated debate about its morality as well as its impact on criminal behaviour. Contemporary arguments for and against capital punishment can be divided into three categories: moral, utilitarian, and practical.
Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder have forfeited their right to life because they have taken the life of another. Furthermore, they believe that capital punishment is a just form of retribution.
In contrast, opponents of capital punishment argue, citing Cesare Beccaria's writings that capital punishment is counterproductive in terms of the moral message it conveys because it legitimizes the very behaviour that the law seeks to repress—killing.
To know more about Capital punishment here
https://brainly.com/question/28180014
#SPJ1