| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
quadalpha
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 65
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| There might be a technical glitch with this passage because the explanation makes it seem there should have been a diagram in the passage, which didn't show up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
enachbe18198
Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| quadalpha wrote: | | There might be a technical glitch with this passage because the explanation makes it seem there should have been a diagram in the passage, which didn't show up. |
Yeh I don't see any diagrams here either |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsfkt78927
Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree, it says, 'when looking at compound B/D, its clear that there was a nucleophilic attack on the least sterically hindered carbon'. Are we suppose to imagine that this happened... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 2176
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By referring to " looking", the passage suggests to look at the description of the compounds B and D, you do not need a diagram to solve this question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diamup
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no description of compounds A, B, C or D, other that the fact that they were reacted with Sodium Methoxide under basic conditions (and that they are presumably cyclic ethers). There is definitely no mention of the kind of substituents on the carbon atoms.
You're right, there is no need for a diagram to answer this questions, but a description (or at least a hint!) of what compounds A, B, C or D look like is definitely needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
