<p>They won’t be released.</p>
<p>Does anybody who has been through this before know when they post the scoring guidelines?</p>
<p>what the heck, so was it unnofficial then, will the curve be identical to From O, if so, whooppeee</p>
<p>They post guidelines around the time the scores are released. Anyone want to do the FR again so we can all check our answers? </p>
<p>As far as I know different forms each have a unique scoring curve. They are based off of the same plot for where the average goes, I think.</p>
<p>I believe the curves are very close, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.</p>
<p>@TheClassyCuber </p>
<p>No, they only said that hybridized orbitals after sp3 would be eliminated. You were still expected to know all the different geometries up to n = 6.</p>
<p>Guys, I fortunately had enough time to finish every FRQ although, as you have noticed, I finished right at the last second. I feel confident that I missed about 3-5 on the FRQ and about 9-10 on the MC. Considering the worst case scenario (i.e. the AP Bio curve last year), do you think I received a five? Also, what did you guys get for 7a on the FRQ when it asked to prove that the reaction was first-order? I wrote something for that and hoped it was right.</p>
<p>@gemar14
First-order half lives do not depend on the concentrations of the reactants. </p>
<p>The more I look at the free response questions, the more I realize how many I messed up on.
For 1d, did anyone else get a really small number? </p>
<p>@Aaly222 Yeah I feel for you, I probably did worse than what I felt I got when I initially finished the test. I’m just waiting for someone or group to create an answer key? </p>
<p>@Aaly222 It should have been a really small number if you just think about it - you’re working with masses in tenths of grams. We actually did a lab very similar to this using a copper strip and eydroppering potassium iodide or something on it. Our data was the slightest bit off and we ended up with CuI50, instead of the CuI2 or CuI3 it was supposed to be. I don’t remember the magnitude but yes it is a small value.</p>
<p>@BilalisAwsome At this point I am praying for a three.
@MoonMax Okay, that makes me feel a bit better but in order to calculate it we were supposed to use the mass of the third drying subtracted by the mass of the filter paper and convert to moles…right?
Probably wrong, yep, I failed. </p>
<p>For the significant figures question, did you guys say there was not enough info for three?</p>
<p>@gemar14 Yes that’s what I put, 3 sigfigs on the chart with the KI to the 2 sigfigs they allowed with the measuring tool.</p>
<p>What about that student hypothesis question? What did you propose as a modification?</p>
<p>@Aaly222 There will probably be something in the key about pointing out that the first trial had an error and using the average mass from the second two trials, but you would probably only lose a point for that. And yes, you just subtract the mass of the dried filter paper from the mass of the filter paper plus the precipitate and convert it to moles.</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap14_frq_chemisty.pdf”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap14_frq_chemisty.pdf</a></p>
<p>FRQS ARE UP ^</p>
<p>@gemar14 For the modification to the hypothesis, I actually used some math words to explain it. I think I said the halogens would form as many compounds as its group number - 2 or something and the compounds would be structured as XF(2n+1) starting at n=0. It works, but I’m not sure if that was an adequate explanation. Probably not. Ohwell, I felt comfortable about everything else.</p>