Twister Party Essay Example for Free

Twister Party Essay Do you have the game of Twister sitting on your shelf collecting dust or buried in your basement gathering cobwebs?   It’s time to dust it off and revive an old party classic.   Twister is back and better than ever if you have the right mindset and group of friends to play along.   With several newer versions of the old game now available, you can even learn to dance as you play this all time favorite.   However, if you haven’t even played the basic version of the classic game, here is all you need to do for you and your college buddies to have a fun and entertaining evening.    You need to get the right group of friends together, play the game correctly, have the right mindset! Twister players come in all shapes and sizes, but they have one thing in common.   They all love to play the game. Find out which of your friends enjoy playing.   Those who say that they don’t, ask them to consider or at least to come over and watch and hang out while a group of more willing participants play.   By the end of the night, they should be hooked and ready to play.    If not, you at least have someone who can be the spinner, or if you have the dance version, the person who watches to see who messes up, â€Å"the judge†.   The right group of friends will enjoy playing whatever form of Twister you choose and will probably even be willing to come up with new twisted versions of the game.   Having a group of friends who are ready and willing to play is the first step in playing Twister.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Once you have your group of friends gathered, let the fun begin!   Playing Twister is very simple.   One player is the spinner, and he or she will spin the spinner.   The spin board has right hand, left hand, right foot and left foot on it with different colored circles, similar to the board.   Each player starts at a home row and then must do what the spinner calls out. For example, if the spinner lands on right hand and a red circle, the players must all place their right hands on a red circle.   You cannot share circles and sometimes circles are far away, so this game involves some stretching and sometimes compromising body positions and contortions. The first person to get stuck or who is not able to move or who falls down loses.   Players continue to â€Å"twist† their bodies all over the plastic mat until the best player is left standing, or rather sprawled across the board.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In order to fully enjoy your night of Twister, you must have the right mindset.   If it is a game of skill you seek, make sure you stretch before hand so you are nimble and able to reach those hard to contort to positions.   If you are using the dance version, brush up a bit before hand and make sure you’re warmed up before beginning, but remember, it’s all about fun   and skill, unless you’re in it for cash.   Then it’s cutthroat!   If you’re playing something more risquà ©, be sure you feel comfortable in such a position and that you are ready for this type of action.   You know that it get’s pretty close and tangled in a game of Twister!   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The game of Twister is making a comeback, like many old toys and games.   This old classic is still a party favorite and you can revive it with your friends and have wonderful Twister parties if you have the right group of people, know how to play, and have the right mindset.

Concerned With Voluntary Euthanasia

Concerned With Voluntary Euthanasia J. David Velleman and Dan W. Brock are both concerned with voluntary euthanasia; a competent patient making a voluntary request to have his or her life ended. The arguments laid out in Vellemans, Against the Right to Die, and Brocks, Voluntary Active Euthanasia deal with active and passive voluntary euthanasia. Active being that the patient actively takes the last step in their death, while passive is usually defined as withdrawing medical treatment with intent to cause death. They do not consider cases involving involuntary euthanasia, when the patient is competent and refuses treatment. Nor do they consider non voluntary euthanasia, when the patient isnt competent at all. Many people believe that giving legality to voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) will in turn lead to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, the slippery slope fallacy, but for the purposes of this paper Im only concerned with VAE. Both authors agree that anyone could possibly be morally entitled to be allowed or h elped to die. However, Velleman argues against an institutional right to die. He believes that making the choice of voluntary active euthanasia available to the people can make them worse off even if they choose the option that is best for them. The ability to make a choice makes one worse off than going with the default option. In this paper, Im going to analyze Vellemans arguments while explaining how Brock responded to Vellemans arguments. To keep the integrity of each authors thoughts, I am going to use similar word phases which will be identified in quotes and later labeled with the paper number of reference. Velleman agrees that we have an obligation to assist some deaths, however he disagrees with those who use Kantian terms to justify such an obligation. He explains that voluntary active euthanasia deals with two major rights a person has, according to Kantian moral theory. They have the right to dignity and their autonomy. A multitude of life-preserving treatments are said to, violate a persons dignity or to detain him in an undignified state (Velleman, pg 2). A patient has the right of autonomy, or self-determinism, which is that we respect his/her competent wishes even if its a wish to die. Velleman goes on to explain how these rights become confusing when dealing with Kantian language in the terms of medical ethics. He has reservations about the loose definitions which dont match up with the extreme states of patients who are in question while dealing with euthanasia. Because of these qualms, Velleman disregards these Kantian-based arguments and moves on. Aside from problems in definition, VAE is dealing with other peoples autonomy. If laws are to be made which prohibit this autonomy, than these laws should make people better off. Velleman feels he has an answer to this dilemma which leads to his second argument against the option of euthanasia being given to patients, but unlike the first, this reason is consequentialist. When Velleman speaks of his consequentialist reasoning, he isnt referring to the consequences of mistakingly choosing to die, but instead, the consequences of placing such an option in the hands of the patient. He believes that giving patients this option will actually make them worse off. Im going to explain how Velleman attempts to prove this and then give the objections laid out by Brock. Contrary to natural thought, if we are given a second option besides the default, it will make us worse off than before no matter which option is chosen. Velleman explains this idea with an example of a cashier who is given the power to open the safe. Its not that the cashier doesnt directly want the power, but rather, it would make him a target for robbers. Even though opening the safe while at gun point would be the right thing to do, hed be wishing hed never been given the option of doing it (Velleman, pg 8). This makes him worse off because he can no longer have the default option, not being forced to open the safe at gun point, without choosing it. Multiple options become available and he is now subject to the pressures of possibility. Relative to euthanasia, this is the most important way of harm. We would be denying a patient the status quo of staying alive by default, with the option of euthanasia looming over his head. Because of this, the patient will now see himself in con trol of his own survival, which is ordinarily viewed as given to him. If the patient sees himself as this agent of control, then he will be held responsible for his actions by himself and others. He would then be required to justify his actions, whether it be his continued existence or choice of euthanasia. The burden of justifying ones existence might make existence unbearable and hence unjustifiable. (Velleman, pg 11) It may be perceived as insecurity, but justifying oneself personally and to others is extremely important to those who are ill. When the gift of independent activity is taken from someone, personal intercourse and intercourse with others is the only relief left in life. And so, unless he can defend his existence to the satisfaction of others, his only reasons for life may disappear. A patient who believes that his terminal illness is not an ample reason for ending his life with be faced with the burden of proof. Even if the patient believes that his life is worth living, he may find reasons to assume that those around him think otherwi se. Reasons ranging from the financial or the emotional costs of prolonging life may cause him to rationally judge that he is better off taking the option of euthanasia (Velleman, pg 12-13). Therefore, Velleman believes that if we offer the option of dying, than we may give patients new reason to choose death. Through the preceding arguments, Velleman is lead to believe that euthanasia should be permissible in some cases, yet still forbidden in others. However, he doubts that policymakers could define such conditions in which the option of dying would be beneficial and when the option of dying would be harmful. This leads him think that the best solution to the problem is allowing health professionals to decide. They should be given the power to permit, and never require, the option of euthanasia or to grant the patients request for it (Velleman, pg 19). It would be possible define certain conditions when the option should never be offered, but we cannot define conditions when euthanasia should always be offered. If put into effect, caregivers could withhold the option whenever they see fit, even when requested. Velleman claims that we already put so much trust into health professionals that this would serve as an effective solution. However, he still believes that the best policy of eutha nasia is no policy at all. Velleman states that he is inclined to believe that advances in medical technology have outrun the capacity of institutional rules to regulate their application. (Velleman, pg 20) And so, the policy regarding euthanasia should be weak and vague by design, left up to the individual health care professionals and the patient in question. (Velleman, pg 20) Dan W. Brock takes the opposite stance as J. David Velleman, believing that there should be an established institutional right to die, as stated in his article, Voluntary Active Euthanasia. He lays out many positive and negative potential consequences of euthanasia, but feels strongest about protecting patients right to autonomy. I will briefly explain some potential positive and negative consequences of euthanasia, but will focus more on his direct responses to Vellemans argument. Some potential good consequences of euthanasia include: giving the general public a broader sense of control over their life and death, showing mercy to suffering patients, and once death is undeniable in certain cases its more humane to do it quickly. Some potential bad consequences of euthanasia include: its not compatible with physicians moral and professional commitment as healers; to protect life, and euthanasia could weaken societys commitment to providing optimal care to the sick. Brock directly calls out Vallemans solution to the euthanasia problem and refutes it. Velleman argues that offering the option of euthanasia would make patients worse off than if not given the option at all. This leads Velleman to conclude the best solution is health care professionals having the power to permit, and never require, (Velleman, pg 19) the option of euthanasia or to grant the patients request for it. In doing so, situations in which there are unmistakable and over- powering reasons for persons to want the option of euthanasia (Brock, pg 19) would be the only cases granted it. Brock lists three main reasons why such restrictions wouldnt lead to the best outcome. First, polls and other evidence tend to show that most Americans do, in fact, believe that euthanasia should be allowed. Consequently, the amount of people made worse off by having the option wont outweigh those made better by having the option. Second, if people would be made worse off by the option of a right t o die, than why dont we see any consequences of voluntary passive euthanasia? People already have the option to refuse life-sustaining treatment and there is no evidence of harmful effects or public desire to take away such right. How would establishing an institutional right to active euthanasia make any difference? To this argument, Velleman has a refute. He states that the option of refusing life-sustaining treatment to end ones life may be just as harmful as having the option of active euthanasia. However, the proportions of deaths that occur as a result of passive euthanasia is very small, making the side-effects very small as well. Also, these side effects are to be accepted as an unavoidable byproduct of protecting the right not to be assaulted. Assaulted in this case as morally entitled to refuse treatment because we are morally entitled to not be drugged or punctured with needles. Third, there is a wide range of conditions that are reasonably disagreed about in the terms of euthanasia. If Velleman suggests restricting euthanasia to persons whose conditions indisputably call for it, than we would be denying the most amount of people who want it. In conclusion, Velleman and Brock disagree on whether to establish an institutional right to die or not. Velleman argues that establishing such a right would burden those given the option of euthanasia, that to offer an option of dying gives new reasons to end ones life. Because of this, he suggests the solution of a weak and vague euthanasia policy by design, left up to the individual health care professionals and the patient in question. Brock argues for an institutional right to die. He lists possible positive and negative outcomes and directly refutes Vellemans conclusion with three arguments. Brock and Velleman could go back and forth all day arguing and refuting each other. However, I believe that they disagree in the simple fundamentals of the situation. Brock believes that an individuals well-being and control over his or her own life far outweighs any impact on society, while Velleman believes that even the option would make patients and society worse off overall.

Immigration in America Essay -- essays research papers

Coming to America†¦Maybe Immigration has been a part of the United States ever since its inception. When Christopher Columbus made his way across the Atlantic Ocean he discovered a land that was almost entirely inhabited. The colonists, essentially the first immigrants to what would be the United States, began to come over group after group until they finally decided that there were enough people living in America that they were a strong enough power to be a separate entity. In 1776 the Americans declared their independence from Great Britain and through the revolutionary war, created the United States. Views from varying sources as well as some insight from North Dakota representatives will be used in order to examine current immigration laws, explain how and why changes should be made, and determine who will be affected by the changes. Early in its history, the United States was often called a melting pot because it was a new nation with no distinctive culture at the time it was established. As immigrants came to the United States, oftentimes they quickly lost their original culture and integrated into the new nation rapidly. Although the United States has been shaped by successive waves of immigrants, Americans have often viewed immigration as a problem. Established Americans often look down on new immigrants. The cultural habits of immigrants are frequently targets of criticism, especially when the new arrivals come from a different country than those in the established community. This type of behavior towards immigrants can be found throughout the nation. When interviewing my district representatives what they were currently doing with immigration laws I received a very common answer from all three of them. They all said that currently they weren’t dealing with any immigration laws because they are usually determined at a national level. Representative Ole Aarsvold said in an e-mail response, â€Å"Immigration is primarily a federal concern but we have had a couple of bills dealing with this issue, very generally, in this legislative session in ND. I will do some research for you.† This led me to open my eyes to the national scope of immigration laws. The United States had no type of immigration laws during its colonial years. Leonard Dinnerstein is a Professor of American History and Director of Judaic Studies at University of Arizona. His Encarta entr... ... Americans declared their independence from Great Britain and through the revolutionary war, created the United States. Views from varying sources as well as some insight from North Dakota representatives were used in order to examine current immigration laws, explain how and why changes should be made, and determine who will be affected by the changes. Work Cited Aarsvold, Ole. â€Å"Re: Thoughts on Immigration.† E-mail to State Representative 22 Mar. 2001. â€Å"American Presidents Talk About Immigration.† American Immigration Law Foundation 1997. 27 Feb. 2001. . Dinnerstein, Leonard. â€Å"Immigration.† Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. 2000. â€Å"Ellis Island Lesson Plan (Immigration).† MSNBC Pencil News. 2000. 27 Mar 2001. . Goldsborough, James. â€Å"Out-of-Control Immigration.† Foreign Affairs. Sept. 2000: 89 Hicks, Chester. â€Å"Remaking the political landscape: how immigration redistributes seats in the House.† Spectrum: the Journal of State Government. Spring 1999: 17. Vialet, Joyce. â€Å"Immigration Legislation and Issues in The 106th Congress.† Migration World Magazine. Sept 1999: 41.

Female Struggles Essay -- Journalism Journalistic Papers

Patriarchal cultures are the universal reality of modern society. People who believe in equal rights for women try to expose the pitfalls of patriarchy. A role of the feminists is to fight patriarchy. In Salt Lake City, Utah where there are a number of people who belong to the Church of Latter Day Saints, also known as Mormons, patriarchy also exists. Terry Tempest Williams discusses patriarchy and women’s connection to the land in Refuge. Over time women’s status in society has become better, however in Mormon culture women’s rights have decreased. In Refuge, Terry Tempest Williams as an ecofeminist defies the traditional Mormon woman’s role. In Refuge the gender roles are not as clear as in society. Williams chooses to display the gender roles more subtly. We learn that women are very close to other women. We see men doing manual labor. You see the mother as the nurturer and the father as the provider. Terry Tempest Williams gives readers insight on the culture but not explicit ideas about how gender in constructed in Mormon culture. Outside of Refuge, women have really lost rights in the last few years. In recent years women have lost the right to have priesthood and give blessings though polygamy has ceased (Stack 2003). These struggles are specific to Mormons but there are many struggles that women face all over the country. The struggles that women face internationally are extensive. The female Mormons in Utah are not exempt from this struggle, in fact their struggles compare to women in the third world. In some Islamic states, the women have to cover their bodies so men can not see their bodies at all. Though Mormonism is not exactly the same, the status of women in the church has become progressively worse, making wo... ... a family, and if finances allow, be a stay at home mom. While women are supposed to be prepared for a career – in case they don’t get married, spouse dies, etc., the first priority is supposed to be raising a family, and often career plans are â€Å"just in case† (4/13/05). With the things that women know and do not quite know they make their opinions as all do. Even with the descent of women in Mormonism, through a thoughtful process, Sheena James herself chooses to be a stay at home mom in the future. There is no problem with this choice nor is it a problem for all women to make this choice; as long as there is a choice. Williams’ choice was not to perpetuate gender roles in her life. She still loves and appreciates her cultural practices though sexism exists in the culture. Being an eco feminist defies the traditional role of the woman as Williams does in Refuge.

A Good Citizen

A good citizen needs to imbibe many qualities. That he has some duties and responsibilities to bear is true, but at same time, he enjoys some rights and privileges as a citizen of a free state. While he has every right to participate in the judicial, legal politics, religious and social affairs of the nation, he has also some responsibilities i. e. not to injure the sentiments of others and to protect the weak against the strong. To stand by the state, under all conditions, is his first and foremost duty. A good citizen must be ready to sacrifice his everything for the sake of his motherland.He is also required to be a patriot and nationalist. He should have firm and deep faith in the welfare of his motherland. He has to obey law and order. But he has also to keep in his heart the betterment of the country, the good of society and the interest of the nation. A good citizen must respect the cultural heritage of his country, i. e. he will have to respect the heroes, ‘the prophet, the sages and saints of his country. He must respect the race which has given birth to him. He must always keep in mind the future of his country. He must attempt to raise the standard of living of his country by working honestly.At an event of aggression or foreign attack, he must be ready to shed his blood for the sake of his motherland. Thus, defense of the country is the supreme duty of a good citizen. Unity of the nations should be his topmost priority. He should work for the unity of the country. A Goodwill for other races, protection to the weak, help to the victims, sympathetic and kind consideration to his fellow citizens are things that are needed in good citizen. A good citizen should have a spirit of cooperation, friendliness, humanity, dedication, devotion for his fellow citizens.He must respect other faiths. He must not do anything which brings disgrace to his society or to his country. Greatest good of greatest number should be his principle. All these good and great qualities, if possessed, make one a good citizen. We are all citizens of one country or the other. We acquire citizenship of our country generally by virtue of our birth. But to be a good citizen requires a lot of training and understanding. As the subject of a country, every citizen has some duties and he enjoys at the same time certain rights.All of us have a right to take part in the legislative as well as judicial activities of this country and can give free expression to our views and opinions from the platform and through the press. A good citizen, therefore, is one who is always broad minded. He must, if living in India, consider himself an Indian first and anything else afterwards. He is ready even to shed his blood for the honour and glory of his country. A good citizen has the good of his country at heart. To raise his country to a higher level of civilization must be his aim.He must not forget that the future, no less than the present, is always lined with the past. A go od citizen must keep the welfare of his town or city or village foremost in his mind at the time of elections. He should understand the existing educational and other institutions of his country and make efforts to bring about desirable improvements. He must love his neighbours. He must be sympathetic, broad-minded and generous. â€Å"In this way, a good citizen should always be ready to forget and forgive. In a word, he should be a perfect gentleman. †

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Racial Discrimination Essay

A quick review of the current headlines of America’s newspapers, blogs and chat rooms speaks volumes about the advances that African-Americans have made in the quest to gain equality in a nation that proclaims â€Å"liberty and justice for all†, but has sadly fallen short of delivering that promise to minorities in decades past. This, of course, brings to mind the struggle to end racial discrimination, a struggle that owes an endless gratitude to Martin Luther King, Jr, a leader of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Sadly, King lost his life to an assassin’s bullet; ironically, this research will prove that Martin Luther King, Jr. ’s fight and dedication to peace and dictated the way in which he tried to end racial discrimination, and he never used force to reach his end result. Who Was Martin Luther King, Jr? If it is possible to fully understand the mindset of Martin Luther King, Jr. , his mission and methods, it is important to likewise gain a better understanding of who he was as not only a social advocate but also as a human being. A simple quote from the last speech that King ever gave, prior to his tragic murder so early in life, speaks a great deal about his philosophy and faith: â€Å"I just want to do God’s will, and he has allowed me to go up to the mountain† (Dyson, 2000, p. 2) In saying this, what King was trying to convey was that he was not motivated by fame, wealth or personal recognition, but rather that he was motivated by what is right, and that he had been given the privilege of using his wisdom and popularity to gain equality for all Americans, regardless of their race. When looking back on the writings and speeches of King, it becomes apparent that he truly advocated non-violent actions to achieve his goals and realize his dream, but he also realized that it would be necessary for blood to shed, probably his most of all, for the dream to come to life. In fairness, it would neither be fair nor correct to depict Martin Luther King, Jr. as a saint or a supernatural figure, no matter how impressive his actions in his life and the sacrificial nature of his death. In its purest sense, King’s message held that it is legally, morally and philosophically the right thing for everyone to have equal rights, regardless of their race. What he intended was for everyone to have the opportunity to prove their abilities, advance based their hard work and initiative and improve their standard of living as much as anyone else. However, it would seem that King has created a monster of sorts, as his message has been perverted for selfish purposes over the years to indicate that minorities should be given preference because of prior deprivations and disadvantages, something which creates a sizeable level of friction between races in America to the present day. Additionally, it has been alleged by King’s critics that he resorted to grandstanding as a means of gaining attention for his cause (Greenblatt, 2008). Suffice it to say that King, in the final analysis was not a superhero, nor was he all style and no substance. In actuality, he was an intelligent, motivated individual who was driven by zeal to make a difference in the world, eradicate wrongs that he observed in that world, and try to generate harmony for minorities and non-minorities through the promotion of peace between the two groups. Simply put, King was human, but doing everything humanly possible to rise above the limitations of what he saw as an unjust world. Turning Imprisonment into Freedom Perhaps one of the clearest statements of King’s support of non-violent action in order to eradicate injustice and discrimination anywhere that it existed in the United States can be found in his writing that would become known as â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail†. The â€Å"letter† came into existence when King was arrested as a result of his protesting activities in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, which as that time and place was believed by many to be the most racially segregated and prejudiced city in the United States of America. Adding insult to injury, the clergy of Birmingham leveled the allegation that King and his groups of non-violent protesters who came to Birmingham were in fact outsiders who were essentially interfering with matters that they had no business being involved with in the first place. Taking a certain level of offense at this accusation, King addressed his letter directly to the clergy of Birmingham who were making the accusations and managed to cleverly outline his strategies for achieving meaningful change without using violence, the precedent for doing so throughout Biblical texts and secular history accounts, and precisely what he and his many fellow advocates intended to realize in the end after the actions took place (Abcarius & Klotz, 2007). Additionally, some other facets of the letter deserve recognition. King uses terms like â€Å"loyalty† and â€Å"sacred values† to make the argument that the battle to end discrimination is something that is not only of the mind of all people, but also a matter of the heart. Further, he makes the assertion that the level of difficulties that existed in Birmingham made involvement by outsiders not only appropriate, but also necessary. Thus, it can be fairly argued that King was ready, willing and able to selflessly embark on a crusade of freedom, wherever that crusade happened to take him. King’s Death Gave Added Life to His Dream As this research was introduced, the point was made that ironically, a non-violent activist like Martin Luther King, Jr. had his life prematurely snuffed out by a violent act on the part of an individual whose sole motivation seemed to be violence in order to reach his goal (Kukathas, 2008). Adding to the irony of King’s murder is that his assassin intended for the murder to also kill King’s dream of equality for all, but in the final analysis, the exact opposite took place. As tragic as his death was, it seemed to speak a million words, telling everyone that racial hatred is not only wrong, but could also be fatal. When faced with life and death, many soon realized that a better dialogue on the issue of race was necessary. While the road to equality would be slow, it was aided by the sacrifice made by Martin Luther King, Jr. upon his death. King in Context and Conclusion As has been seen in this research, Martin Luther King, Jr. was more motivated than perfect, active than violent. In fact, the point has been made by examining pivotal writings of King and his historic record of activism that he made the progress that he did without ever raising a violent hand to anyone. Therefore, in conclusion, what is seen in King is a non-violent catalyst for change in a world that sadly, was too violent to allow him to continue living in it. While those who would come after him would attempt to twist his words for their own benefit and depict King as something that he was not, over the course of history, it has been proven that the quality of what he offered to the world has withstood the test of time and when it is revitalized and used as he designed it, can continue to be successful in the modern United States of America. Hopefully, it will continue to do so as time moves forward. Works Cited Abcarias, R. & Klotz, M. (Eds) (2007). Literature: The Human Experience of Reading and Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press. Dyson, M. E. (Ed) (2000). The True Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: The Free Press Greenblatt, A. (2008). The Legacy of Disadvantage in the United States Kukathas, U (Ed) (2008). Race and Ethnicity. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press

Neutralization and Hydrolysis in Salt Formation

When acids and bases react with each other, they can form a salt and (usually) water. This is called a neutralization reaction and takes the following form: HA BOH → BA H2O Depending on the solubility of the salt, it may remain in ionized form in the solution or it may precipitate out of solution. Neutralization reactions usually proceed to completion. The reverse of the neutralization reaction is called hydrolysis. In a hydrolysis reaction a salt reacts with water to yield the acid or base: BA H2O → HA BOH Strong and Weak Acids and Bases More specifically, there are four combinations of strong and weak acids and bases: strong acid strong base, e.g., HCl NaOH → NaCl H2O When strong acids and strong bases react, the products are salt and water. The acid and base neutralize each other, so the solution will be neutral (pH7) and the ions that are formed will not react with the water. strong acid weak base, e.g., HCl NH3 → NH4Cl The reaction between a strong acid and a weak base also produces a salt, but water is not usually formed because weak bases tend not to be hydroxides. In this case, the water solvent will react with the cation of the salt to reform the weak base. For example: HCl (aq) NH3 (aq) ↔ NH4 (aq) Cl- whileNH4- (aq) H2O ↔ NH3 (aq) H3O (aq) weak acid strong base, e.g., HClO NaOH → NaClO H2O When a weak acid reacts with a strong base the resulting solution will be basic. The salt will be hydrolyzed to form the acid, together with the formation of the hydroxide ion from the hydrolyzed water molecules. weak acid weak base, e.g., HClO NH3 ↔ NH4ClO The pH of the solution formed by the reaction of a weak acid with a weak base depends on the relative strengths of the reactants. For example, if the acid HClO has a Ka of 3.4 x 10-8 and the base NH3 has a Kb 1.6 x 10-5, then the aqueous solution of HClO and NH3 will be basic because the Ka of HClO is less than the Ka of NH3.

Manhattan College GPA, SAT Scores and ACT Scores