Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Is the Princeton Review trustworthy?

DarkseerDarkseer Registered User Posts: 8 New Member
I've bought two Princeton Review (SAT II physics/Chemistry) to get prepare. The results is just fine when I do the practice tests. But is the result trustworthy? I've found little error in the books (little, but little is more than none).

-

By the way, this is part of a chemistry problem which I think its answer is wrong:
Q: Consider the reaction: 2NOCl(g) <--> 2NO(g)+Cl2(g)
Does a decrease in the volume of the reaction vessel serve to decrease the concentration of Cl2?

The answer in the book is yes. Well, of course after a decrease in the volume the equilibrium shift to the left. But you increase the concentration of Cl2 when you decrease the volume, don't you? And after some calculation I believe that the concentration is increased...
Post edited by Darkseer on

Replies to: Is the Princeton Review trustworthy?

  • Ruella76Ruella76 Registered User Posts: 311 Junior Member
    I'm not completely sure, but I think the Princeton Review is right on this one. A shift to the left would mean that the concentration of the reactants is increasing and the concentration of the products is increasing. Since Cl2 is a reactant, its concentration would decrease.
  • chillaxinchillaxin Registered User Posts: 965 Member
    I believe that you're right on the concentration problem. All prep books are known to make mistakes, and PR is no different, although I believe it has less errors than the other books (e.g. Barron's and Sparknotes).
This discussion has been closed.