How does substituting a hydrogen atom with a halogen in a hydrocarbon affect the resulting compound? a. all the single bonds in the original molecule change to double bonds. b. the boiling point of the new compound increases. c. the bonds between the carbon atoms in the molecule become weaker. d. the resulting compound is called a saturated hydrocarbon. e. the substitution allows each carbon atom to accept more than four valence electrons. me asap, its im in the middle of a !

hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain only hydrogens and carbons. they can be saturated (those which contain only carbon-carbon single bonds) or unsaturated (those which contain carbon-carbon double or triple bonds) in nature. hydrocarbons can undergo several reactions like substitution, elimination etc.  

on substituting one or more hydrogen atoms in hydrocarbon it results in the formation of haloalkane. as the halogen atoms are large compared to the carbon and hydrogen atoms, due to which the molecular weight increases and the bond become polar because of presence electronegative halogen atom and results in the increase in boiling point of the haloalkane.

thus, the correct option is (b) that is the boiling point of the new compound increases on substituting a hydrogen atom with a halogen in a hydrocarbon.

substituting a hydrogen atom with a halogen in a hydrocarbon:

- the single bond remains single. a is wrong.

- the bond with hydrogen is as strong as with a halogen. c is wrong

- a hydrocarbon is saturated if there is no double bond. we do not know that so d is wrong.

- carbon will always have four valence electrons. e is wrong.

by elimination, the correct answer is b. the boiling point of the new compound increases.

when—without warning—something provokes your anger, you may struggle not to succumb to it. since what typically makes you mad is feeling powerless in the face of what seems unfair, your anger is mostly an attempt at a “quick fix” to right the balance. it’s as though you’re raising a fist in protest, proclaiming that you’re not going to capitulate to such injustice.

there are, however, a multitude of problems related to this immediate, push-back reaction of anger. and probably the key one is that almost never does it resolve the issue that gave rise to it. such reactive anger is probably best understood as self-defeating. as david burns, the author of the seminal self- book feeling good, observes: if realistically, acting on your anger is to make any sense, it needs to meet two criteria—which, in almost every case, is frankly impossible. that is, your anger must:

be directed toward a person who has intentionally (and needlessly) behaved in a hurtful way toward you; and

be beneficial or advantageous to you (i.e., assist you in achieving a desired goal).

i think you’ll agree that only rarely can you claim that your anger is both warranted and , whether to yourself or the relationship.

so let me offer you a two-step alternative to abandoning your better judgment and giving in to the temptation of anger—one that should neutralize your anger in seconds. or, when you’re really angry, in minutes.

but keep in mind that you must really want to execute these steps, be sufficiently motivated to perform them. which means overcoming more unconscious resistance than you might ever have imagined. because there are many immediate “advantages” of anger that can interfere with your resolve, i’ll suggest a few of them that might interfere with your employing this powerful method to rid yourself of counter-productive anger.

explanation: