The minimum number of unshared valence electron pairs in the ligands of a coordination compound is the minimum number of unshared valence electron pairs in the ligands of a coordination compound is 1 2 3 4 5

The minimum number of unshared valence electron pairs in the ligands of a coordination compound is one.

Option A

Explanation:

The metal and ligand are joined by a covalent bond, comprising of two electrons shared between them.  the two electrons are given by the ligand itself.   In coordination science, a ligand refers an ion or a molecule (functional gathering) that ties to the central metal particle to frame a coordination complex. Practically every molecule and each ion can fill in as ligand for (or the coordinate to) metals.

Denticity denotes the occasions a ligand bond to metal through contributor atoms. Numerous ligands are equipped for restricting metal ions through different destinations, generally in light of the fact that the ligands have solitary matches on more than one particle.

Metal atom or ion, as a rule, cling to two, four or six ligands. These are orchestrated with geometric symmetry surrounding the central metal molecule. The metal collectively with its ligands is known as a coordination compound. On the off chance that the structure has a general electrical charge, it is known as a complexion.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

the answer would be 32*f