Here are my comments on the 2008B exam;
Question 1: EXTREMELY straightforward. Again, I fail to see the need for question #1 HAVING to be an equilibrium problem, and part (b) seems almost completely redundant in terms of being worth points, but…..there you go. I guess when you ask this stuff SO much there’s only a limited number of questions that can be generated.
Question 2: Again, EXTREMELY easy and the predictability of these questions on kinetics is just about off the charts. VERY little imagination shown here. I STILL hate the insistence on using “real” data;
NOTE TO COLLEGE BOARD: IF YOU WANT TO TEST REAL LAB SKILLS, HAVE A REAL LAB EXAM RATHER THAN A TOTALLY CONTRIVED EFFORT WITH SILLY “LAB” NUMBERS!
Question 3: ANOTHER very simple question, but at least there was a touch more imagination. I would like to see the combination of a simple stoichiometry reaction WITH something else like a REDOX reaction to broaden the scope of the questions.
In recent years we’ve seen some questions where a combo of skills have been asked in a single question, but here (especially question 2 and question 3 to some extent), that pattern seems to have regressed a little.
Question 4: I fail to see the need to TELL the candidates that Cl2 IS an oxidizing agent (way too much spoon feeding). I’d rather not see more stoichiometry in (b)(ii) (in the wake of Q3). (c)(ii) is more challenging.
Question 5: I must say that I like the imagination shown in this question, it’s nice to see a different, refreshing approach. The chemistry is still pretty simple, but I’ll cut it some slack! Someone in the Listserv mentioned that it would be potentially hazardous for candidates who are not native English speakers which I think is a valid point, and probably not one the CB considered. Outside of that, nice to see.
Question 6: Well, it does break the pattern of Delta G/H/S question slightly, BUT there is only so much that one can ask about this stuff! There have been SCORES of questions about this subject and I think that we need a break from it.