Psychology in Practice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Brain science in Practice - Essay Example Others have referenced the possibility of similitude and relatedness, demonstrating that an individual is bound to help another dependent on a hereditary evaluation of the circumstance and the longing to help those of their particular genetic supply. Another prosocial thought is that people act as per the hypothesis of complementary philanthropy, wherein people help other people in the desire for accepting something consequently. People may likewise help other people when confronted with blame or the need to reimburse a decent deed that was recently done to them. This is known as blame or reparative benevolence (Wetering). Then again, circumstances exist in which people probably won't be slanted to help. Circumstances of moralistic animosity may emerge, in which individuals feel that others are exploiting their philanthropic inclinations, and in such cases they probably won't be slanted to help. Such is frequently the situation in bigger urban areas where con artists are adept to exist. Unpretentious cheating and mimicry flourish, through which individuals may claim to be in trouble so as to evoke benevolent conduct. Such circumstances are probably going to make moralistic animosity emerge in people as a defensive system (Wetering). The social setting likewise decides the kind of conduct one can anticipate from an individual. As indicated by the Darley and Latanã © study done in 1968, an individual is bound to support another on the off chance that the individual is the main accessible assistant in the circumstance. This hypothesis is much the same as others concerning swarms. Territories that are packed or occupied will in general contain individuals who are less inclined to help in a desperate circumstance. This may be because of their being in a rush or it may depend on the possibility that swarms or busier territories are bound to contain artful people. In such cases examples may likewise get so that regardless of such factors as social or cultural standards, in a group, the spectator

Juvenile Justice

Vineet Advani Mrs. Sheaffer English 7 4 December 2011 Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults Unmoved by his mom's depiction of him as â€Å"a kind and delicate soul,† a Harris County jury go to a choice on Wednesday that 18-year-old, Robert Acuna, ought to be put on an existence without any chance to appeal sentence for killing two old neighbors in a peaceful town. Examiners introduced little explanation for why the Sterling High School junior, who worked low maintenance at a drive-through joint, shot James Carroll, 75, and his significant other, Joyce, 74, execution style. He has insidious in his heart,† Assistant District Attorney Renee Magee advised members of the jury as she asked them to restore a capital punishment (film). Acuna was 17 at the hour of the killings. The U. S. Preeminent Court intends to consider in the not so distant future whether it is sacred to execute executioners who were more youthful than 18 when they carried out their violations. The age of 18 a chieves opportunity for youngsters in America. At 18, an individual legitimately turns into a â€Å"adult†. An individual would now be able to purchase cigarettes or a home, enter grown-up just clubs, vote, and even get hitched. Besides, from their eighteenth birthday celebration and past, people are not, at this point went after for wrongdoings in adolescent courts. Presently, they are attempted in grown-up courts. Be that as it may, does a couple of years have such an effect between multi year olds and multi year olds? Is it reasonable for one individual, only seventeen years old, to be attempted in an adolescent court, getting a lesser sentence for homicide than an individual only a half year more seasoned or more in age who carried out a similar wrongdoing? I think not. Numerous articles like â€Å"Kids are Kids †Until They Commit Crimes† by Marjie Lundstrom, â€Å"Supreme Court to Rule on Executing Young Killers† by Adam Liptak, â€Å"Startling Finds on Teenage Brains† by Paul Thompson and â€Å"Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial† by Greg Krikorian show various perspectives on this point. In any case, I figure attempting adolescents as grown-ups ought to be reliably permitted in light of the fact that adolescents are sufficiently developed to that murder isn't right; it lessens wrongdoing; having results harsher for savage violations in adolescent go about as prevention to the young; and attempting adolescents as grown-ups permits society to communicate a straightforward message Development should decide culpability, not numerical age. While the facts confirm that adolescents, as a gathering, are less full grown and more slow mental health rates and along these lines, level of development differs incredibly from individual to person. Concurring Dr. Moin, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Alberta, â€Å"Simply on the grounds that the normal youth is less full grown than the normal grown-up doesn't imply that the specific adolescent who carries out an appalling wrongdoing is less chargeable. There might be developed and ascertaining youth and exceptionally juvenile and credulous grown-ups. † Furthermore, Dr. Brian Woo of Pepperdine University Law School expresses that, â€Å"Rather than think about adolescents as a class in the total, age alone can't be subbed as a proportion of a person's development or mental development†¦. As opposed to embrace a brilliant line rule, the Court ought to permit the jury to factor in any alleviating proof, I. e. , youth or youthfulness, while deciding a suitable sentence. † Thus, attempting adolescents as grown-ups permits culpability to decide the degree and seriousness of discipline as opposed to whether an individual carried out a wrongdoing the day preceding or the day after their eighteenth birthday celebration. Discipline is expressive and sends a reasonable message against wrongdoing. Attempting adolescents as grown-ups enables society to communicate the ethical shock of specific acts. As indicated by David Gelenter of Yale University, â€Å"we execute killers so as to make a shared declaration: that murder is unfortunate. An intentional killer epitomizes insidious so horrendous that it pollutes the network. In this way the late social scholar Robert Nisbet: â€Å"Until a purification has been influenced through preliminary, through the finding of blame and afterward discipline, the network is on edge, frightful, anxious, or more all, defiled. Singular residents have a privilege and once in a while an obligation to talk. A people group has the right, as well, and some of the time the obligation. The people group guarantees births and passings, makes relationships, instructs kids, and battles intruders. Parents in law, deeds, and functions it sets out the limit lines of socialized life, l ines that are continually getting scraped and requiring restoration. † Thus, attempting adolescents as grown-ups permits society to communicate a straightforward message †certain demonstrations are just unfortunate. Attempting Juveniles as grown-ups diminishes wrongdoing. It is a basic law of financial aspects that by expanding the expense of specific exercises, people are more averse to take part in those exercises. Dr. Moin states that in an investigation by Dr. Levitt â€Å"there was a measurably huge negative connection between crime percentages of adolescent guilty parties and length of condemning. † Dr. Moin proceeds to express that † What these examinations show is that adolescents do react to capture rates and discipline, particularly for brutal wrongdoings, and that they react in any event as a lot to discipline as grown-ups do. Accordingly, attempting adolescents as grown-ups decreases wrongdoing by hindering others and forestalling those vulnerable to wrongdoing from being able to do as such. Adolescents are bound to be assaulted in the Juvenile Justice System. As opposed to securing adolescent wrongdoers, the adolescent equity framework jeopardizes them far more prominent than the grown-up framework. As indicated by David Kais er â€Å"Across the nation, 12. 1% of children addressed in the Bureau of Justice Statistics study said that they'd been explicitly mishandled at their present office during the previous year. That is almost one out of eight. Altogether, as indicated by the latest information, there are about 93,000 children in adolescent detainment on any given day†¦ we can say unhesitatingly that the BJS's 3,220 figure speaks to just a little division of the youngsters explicitly mishandled in confinement consistently. † The explanation behind this pandemic is clear. As indicated by David Kaiser, â€Å"Adults who need to have intercourse with youngsters now and again search for occupations that will make it simple. They need authority over children, however no cumbersome management; they additionally need places that will cause them to appear to be more reliable than their potential informers. It might be said, adolescent confinement offices resemble blazing neon lights for potential pedophiles. This is in no way, shape or form rehabilitative. Having outcomes harsher for rough violations in adolescent goes about as a shirking to the young. The avoidance hypothesis expresses that if the result of carrying out a wrongdoing exceeds the advantage of the wrongdoing itself, the individual will be stopped from perpetrating the wrongdoing. Educator of law Scot and teacher of brain science Steinberg said â€Å"first, the danger of unforgiving assents may stop future wrongdoing by and large by disheartening young people from ever engaging in crime. Second, detainment forestalls wrongdoing by debilitating guilty parties. Third, detainment could lessen future wrongdoing by restoring youthful guilty parties with the goal that they will patch their criminal ways† Champion and Mays, Criminal Justice Professors at California State University said Deterrence presumes that rebuffing a wrongdoer will keep the person in question from perpetrating further demonstrations of aberrance, or will prevent others from law-disregarding conduct, and the exchange of adolescents to grown-up court should serve an impediment work. The grown-up criminal equity framework has a more regrettable discipline than the adolescent court accordingly it will fill in as a superior impediment factor to stop the adolescent savage wrongdoing. Powerful prevention will have the option to guarantee wellbeing since it will stop the wrongdoing before it occurs. At the point when the outcomes are more awful, there will be less wrongdoing; consequently Juveniles ought to be treated as grown-ups in the criminal equity framework on the off chance that they perpetrated a rough wrongdoing. Others may state juvenile’s minds aren't as evolved as grown-ups. Nonetheless, you are instructed to recognize what is good and bad so how does your mind being not completely evolved influence your ability of realizing that murder isn't right. As indicated by Terence T. Gorski is a globally perceived master on substance misuse, psychological well-being, viciousness, and wrongdoing and others qualified experts, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam. ) â€Å"Scientific contemplates have discovered that the human cerebrum experiences consistent improvement up to the time of around twenty-one. Since the minds of adolescents, especially the frontal projections, are not completely evolved, young people come up short on the capacity to perform basic grown-up capacities, for example, plan, foresee results, and control impulses,† states Adam Ortiz, a strategy individual with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Despite the fact that adolescents ought to be rebuffed for their wrongdoings, they are not as mindful as grown-ups. â€Å"This is the reason underneath society's in all cases limitations on casting a ballot rights, liquor and tobacco utilization, and serving in the outfitted forces,† watches Ortiz. In fact, this is the reason we allude to those under 18 as 'minors' and 'juveniles'â€because, in such a significant number of regards, they are not exactly grown-up. † Murder anyway is an alternate story since you end someone’s life. As I stated, Juveniles are TAUGHT to comprehend what's up and right. The attitude of the fresher ages is commonly higher than the kids from 30 years back. Murder isn't right and if adolescents know it’s off-base and still submits murder, for what reason would it be a good idea for us to at present back off of them and treat them as adolescents? In synopsis, attempting adolescents as grown-ups is defended by both deontological and useful perspectives on equity by guaranteeing culpability is the standard of discipline at the same time discouraging wrongdoing and shielding adolescents from misuse. From composing this exposition, I have discovered that in the event that I was a legal advisor and I was against an adolescent in grown-up court, I would treat him

Are You An Incoming or Current SIPA Student from Mexico COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - SIPA Admissions Blog

Are You An Incoming or Current SIPA Student from Mexico COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - SIPA Admissions Blog If you are an incoming or current SIPA student living in Mexico City you have the opportunity to get together with other students from SIPA prior to the start of the fall semester.   I recently received an inquiry from an incoming student living in Mexico City, Celcilia, who has an interest in getting together with other students in the area.   The following is her message: If you are from Mexico City and will be attending Columbia next fall this message is for you. My name is Cecilia and I will be attending SIPA. I am planning a reunion for future Columbia Mexican Students in Mexico City before we all leave to NYC in order to get to know each other and to exchange experiences about different issues such as housing, travel, phone company etc. If you are interested, please send an email to cf2389 [at] columbia.edu Thanks! Cecilia If other students wish to have similar messages posted to the blog for public consumption please send a message to the Office of Admissions at sipa_admission@columbia.edu.

About a legalization of gay adoption - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1469 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/07/30 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Gay Adoption Essay Did you like this example? Adoption has been around for many years, but only recently has the question of gay adoption risen. There are many orphans in the world, but not enough families or parents to take them in. There arent that many families who can and will adopt children, whether its because they cant support them, they have children of their own, or they just dont want children. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "About a legalization of gay adoption" essay for you Create order The end result is still an overabundance of orphaned children in need of a loving family. There is a solution to this problem. Gay adoption. There is a rising amount of open homosexual couples everywhere and most of them would love to have kids, but its still illegal for homosexual couples to adopt children in some areas of the U.S., let alone the world. All across our country, and in other countries, there are children awaiting adoption and eager parents who would like to welcome those children into their homes, but are banned from doing so. These parents have done nothing wrong and possess the same skills and resources as other potential parents, and yet they are not allowed to give a child everything he or she needs, love, protection, and security. So why are these potential parents banned from adopting? Discrimination and prejudices are the main cause of this unconstitutional act. Adoption to gay couples should be legalized everywhere because anyone who is able to meet the requir ements of being a loving parent deserves to become a parent, despite their sexual preferences and many kids would be grateful to have two loving parents. There are a many different reasons why gay adoption is banned and many people who object to it. While some states are becoming more open minded, other states remain close minded and remain strict in its stand against gay adoption, so in those states, its still illegal for gay couples to adopt children. Some would say that it could cause psychological problems, that it isnt natural, or that the couples wouldnt be good parents. Others would be against it for religious reasons. Some people like Bill Maier, a child psychologist working with the conservative Focus on the Family, would say, Children in foster care ?are already scarred by abuse and neglect, we would want to do everything we could to place them in the optimal home environment. But studies show that gay couples are doing really well raising children. With gay couples adopting, there could be many more homes available for kids and orphans around the world. Im sure that a foster child would prefer to love in a loving and nurtur ing home with a gay couple, rather than move around from foster parent to foster parent. Foster children are often victims of foster care shuffle. For example, a child can live in twenty different homes before he or she turns eighteen. Anna Freud, a child psychologist, wrote a child can handle almost anything better than instability. In the United States alone, the number of children forced into the foster care system is incredible. According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Report there were about 423,773 children in foster care in the United States only a couple of years ago. ( afcars report). Each foster child in the system should have a chance at adoption so to deny gay couples the right to adopt is not only heartbreaking for both the child and the potential gay couple but also unconstitutional. In some areas, gay parents are already serving as foster parents towards children so gay adoption is just a step away. One religion against gay adoption is the Catholic religion; it opposes gay adoption because its belief is that its not healthy for a child to grow up with gay parents. They argue that because gays or lesbian couples consist of only one sex, the child is denied either a father or a mother. However, they are forgetting that gays are normal people who have families which can include parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, friends and many others that the children can be influenced by, and while the parents will be the childs main influence, they will have other people in their lives too. A requirement of being a parent shouldnt focus on a persons sexual orientation; its not an aspect that should matter. The main things to look for when evaluating a persons worth as a parent should be whether or not the person is caring, devoted, and stable. In an article by Jon Campbell, it is stated that a man, Danny Stewart, found a recently-born baby on a subway. The baby was taken into custody and when Jon Campbell was asked to testify about this baby the judge asked if he was interested in adopting. Soon after, he and his partner, Peter Mercurio, adopted the baby, thinking that it might be their only chance in adopting a child. Another example of how much gay couples value having children is shown by Birtcher, a 44 year old hair salon owner, when he said, Our prisons are full of people who were in foster care, and those people were in, quote unquote, straight family homes, if I can provide a loving, stable home for my little boy, thats the goal. These articles show how much gay couples value having children and it shows that they could great parents, despite irrational arguments against them. Another argument that some would make is that growing up in a family with gay parents could have damaging and lasting psychological effects on the child. And while some may agree to this, Bryan Samuels, from Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, proves to those who agree with that statement wrong. He clearly stated, The child welfare system has come to understand that placing a child in a gay or lesbian family is no greater risk than placing them in a heterosexual family. Another source states that High-risk children adopted from foster care do equally well when placed with gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents, UCLA psychologists report in the first multi-year study of children adopted by these three groups of parents.(Wolpert). The only possible damaging psychological effects are from the bullying from ignorant peers that learned prejudices passed down from their parents. The society worries about gays as parents, but gay parents worry about the impact of society on their children. The prejudices from society can harm these adopted children only because its still a rarity. However, if gays and lesbians were able to adopt more frequently, and without discrimination, society would be more open about gays as parents. A nine-year-old little girl kept getting teased because of her parents sexual orientations. Does that sound wrong? It should. If society was more accepting, her peers would be less likely to tease her. Allowing homosexual couples to adopt everywhere will open so many more doors, children in foster care will have a higher chance at a permanent home, and gays will have the rights to be parents given back to them, something that should have never been taken away in the first place. Ultimately, the legalization of gay adoption everywhere would benefit our society, having loving homes in which orphaned children can go to is a blessing for both the child and the parents. It would lessen the probability of juvenile delinquents resulting from the horrible conditions of the foster care system. Children wouldnt be harmfully affected growing up with homosexual parents; they would be more than likely to be grateful to have a family. Anyone who has the ability to raise a child in a loving and secure home and most importantly, wants a child, deserves to become a parent and should not be denied the pleasure of raising a child. Gay adoption is a positive solution to the number of children that go each year without a loving home and family. Works Cited Sunshine, Adams. Gay Adoption Research Paper | The Official Adam Lambert Site. The Official Adam Lambert Site. Adam Lambert Site, 3 May 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. Gay Adoption. Love and Pride, 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. Hitt, Caitlyn. Theres No Difference Between Same-Sex Opposite Sex Parents.YourTango. Your Tango, 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. Merkle, Daniel. More Americans Support Gay Adoption. ABC News. ABC News Network, 2 Apr. 0000. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. Sieczkowski, Cavan. Gay Couple Shares Unbelievable Story Of Adoption After Finding Baby On Subway. The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 01 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. Stone, Andrea. USATODAY.com Both Sides on Gay Adoption Cite Concern for Children. USATODAY.com Both Sides on Gay Adoption Cite Concern for Children. USA Today, 20 Feb. 2006. Web. 28 Mar. 2013. Tavernise, Sabrina. Adoptions Rise by Same-Sex Couples, Despite Legal Barriers. The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 June 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. Wolpert, Stuart. For News Media. Foster Kids Do Equally Well When Adopted by Gay, Lesbian Or Heterosexual Parents / UCLA Newsroom. Ucla Newsroom, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.

Drury University Admission ACT Scores, Acceptance Rate

Software Developer Free Essays

R N S INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CHANNASANDRA, BANGALORE – 61 UNIX SYSTEM PROGRAMMING NOTES FOR 6TH SEMESTER INFORMATION SCIENCE SUBJECT CODE: 06CS62 PREPARED BY RAJKUMAR Assistant Professor Department of Information Science DIVYA K 1RN09IS016 6th Semester Information Science and Engineering 1rn09is016@gmail. com Text Books: 1 Terrence Chan: Unix System Programming Using C++, Prentice Hall India, 1999. 2 W. We will write a custom essay sample on Software Developer or any similar topic only for you Order Now Richard Stevens, Stephen A. Rago: Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, 2nd Edition, Pearson Education / PHI, 2005 Notes have been circulated on self risk nobody can be held responsible if anything is wrong or is improper information or insufficient information provided in it. Contents: UNIT 1, UNIT 2, UNIT 3, UNIT 4, UNIT 5, UNIT 6, UNIT 7 RNSIT UNIX SYSTEM PROGRAMMING NOTES UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION UNIX AND ANSI STANDARDS UNIX is a computer operating system originally developed in 1969 by a group of ATT employees at Bell Labs, including Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Douglas McElroy and Joe Ossanna. Today UNIX systems are split into various branches, developed over time by ATT as well as various commercial vendors and non-profit organizations. The ANSI C Standard In 1989, American National Standard Institute (ANSI) proposed C programming language standard X3. 159-1989 to standardise the language constructs and libraries. This is termed as ANSI C standard. This attempt to unify the implementation of the C language supported on all computer system. The major differences between ANSI C and KR C [Kernighan and Ritchie] are as follows: ? Function prototyping ? Support of the const and volatile data type qualifiers. Support wide characters and internationalization. ? Permit function pointers to be used without dereferencing. Function prototyping ANSI C adopts C++ function prototype technique where function definition and declaration include function names, arguments’ data types, and return value data types. This enables ANSI C compilers to check for function calls in user progr ams that pass invalid number of arguments or incompatible arguments’ data type. These fix a major weakness of KR C compilers: invalid function calls in user programs often pass compilation but cause programs to crash when they are executed. Eg: unsigned long foo(char * fmt, double data) { /*body of foo*/ } unsigned long foo(char * fmt, double data); eg: int printf(const char* fmt,†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. ); External declaration of this function foo is specify variable number of arguments Support of the const and volatile data type qualifiers. ? The const keyword declares that some data cannot be changed. Eg: int printf(const char* fmt,†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. ); Declares a fmt argument that is of a const char * data type, meaning that the function printf cannot modify data in any character array that is passed as an actual argument value to fmt. Volatile keyword specifies that the values of some variables may change asynchronously, giving an hint to the compiler’s optimization algorithm not to remove any â€Å"redundant† statements that involve â€Å"volatile† objects. char get_io() { volatile char* io_port = 0x7777; char ch = *io_port; /*read first byte of data*/ ch = *io_port; /*read second byte of data*/ } ? eg: If io_port variable is not declared to be volatile when the program is compiled, the compiler may eliminate second ch = *io_port statement, as it is considered redundant with respect to the previous statement. Prepared By: RAJKUMAR [Asst. Prof. ] DIVYA K [1RN09IS016] Page 1 RNSIT UNIX SYSTEM PROGRAMMING NOTES The const and volatile data type qualifiers are also supported in C++. Support wide characters and internationalisation ? ? ANSI C supports internationalisation by allowing C-program to use wide characters. Wide characters use more than one byte of storage per character. ANSI C defines t he setlocale function, which allows users to specify the format of date, monetary and real number representations. For eg: most countries display the date in dd/mm/yyyy format whereas US displays it in mm/dd/yyyy format. Function prototype of setlocale function is: ? #include char setlocale (int category, const char* locale); ? The setlocale function prototype and possible values of the category argument are declared in the header. The category values specify what format class(es) is to be changed. Some of the possible values of the category argument are: category value effect on standard C functions/macros LC_CTYPE LC_TIME LC_NUMERIC LC_MONETARY LC_ALL ? ? ? ? ? Affects behavior of the macros Affects date and time format. Affects number representation format Affects monetary values format combines the affect of all above Permit function pointers without dereferencing ANSI C specifies that a function pointer may be used like a function name. No referencing is needed when calling a function whose address is contained in the pointer. For Example, the following statement given below defines a function pointer funptr, which contains the address of the function foo. extern void foo(double xyz,const int *ptr); void (*funptr)(double,const int *)=foo; The function foo may be invoked by either directly calling foo or via the funptr. foo(12. 78,†Hello world†); funptr(12. 78,†Hello world†); KR C requires funptr be dereferenced to call foo. (* funptr) (13. 48,†Hello usp†); ANSI C also defines a set of C processor(cpp) symbols, which may be used in user programs. These symbols are assigned actual values at compilation time. cpp SYMBOL USE _STDC_ Feature test macro. Value is 1 if a compiler is ANSI C, 0 otherwise _LINE_ Evaluated to the physical line number of a source file. _FILE_ Value is the file name of a module that contains this symbol. _DATE_ Value is the date that a module containing this symbol is compiled. _TIME_ value is the time that a module containing this symbol is compiled. The following test_ansi_c. c program illustrates the use of these symbols: #include int main() { #if _STDC_==0 printf(â€Å"cc is not ANSI C compliant†); #else printf(â€Å"%s compiled at %s:%s. This statement is at line %d †, _FILE_ , _DATE_ , _TIME_ , _LINE_ );

Making a standard solution Essay Example

Making a standard solution Paper To find the molarity of the unknown acid, first we had to create a standard solution, the solution we created was Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). We wanted a 0. 1 molar solution of sodium hydroxide so to get this we had to dissolve 4g of NaOH into 1000cm? of water, but we didn’t want 1000cm? we wanted 250cm? so to work out how much sodium hydroxide would be needed you need to do the same equation to the number of grams (g) than with the volume of water, so to get 1000cm? down to 250cm? You divide it by 4, so you divide 4 by 4 which gives you 1, so one gram of NaOH is needed to make a 0. 1 molar solution in 250cm? of water. Next is making the solution, the equipment needed to make this standard solution is: a balance, beaker, volumetric flask, glass rod, wash bottle. And the ingredients for the solution are NaOH and distilled water. To make NaOH solution is to measure out 1g of sodium hydroxide and place on a scrap piece of paper which is on the balance, it isn’t essential that you get exactly 1g just approximately 1g. Then put some distilled water into a beaker enough to dissolve the sodium hydroxide, transfer the sodium hydroxide from the paper to the beaker and dissolve by swirling and stirring. Once dissolved transfer this solution to a volumetric flask, and wash out the beaker and glass rod which was used to stir the solid NaOH into the water, now add distilled water to the volumetric flask, up until the bottom of the meniscus is on the 250cm?line and shake and mix it up a little, then you have made your solution. In my solution it wasn’t 1g, I weighed 0. 99g. The next stage is to calculate the molarity of your solution. We will write a custom essay sample on Making a standard solution specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Making a standard solution specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Making a standard solution specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer To work out the moles it is moles= grams ? relative molecular mass (RMM) so for my solution it will be 0. 99? 40 (40 is the RMM of sodium hydroxide, this is calculated by adding the mass of each atom in the compound together, so for NaOH it is Na=23 O=16 and H=1. 23+16+1=40 this is where the 40 comes from.) 0. 99 ? 40= 0. 02475 rounded to 4 decimal places is 0. 0248 that is the molarity of the 250cm? but molarity is always measured in 1000cm? so now you have to times 0. 0248 by 4, 0. 0248 x 4= 0. 992, and that is the final molarity of your solution so my molarity is 0. 992M. Now is to titrate you solution with the unknown acid, to do this you need: a clamp, a beaker for acid, a beaker for your standard solution and another beaker for waste, a conical flask, 50ml burette, 25ml pipette. Once all the equipment has been set up you now need to add your unknown solution into the burette and leave the tap open and put the waste beaker under it to make sure there is no air bubbles in the burette, turn the tap off and fill the burette up, now take the pipette filler and fill up your pipette with your standard solution and put that in the conical flask, add a colour indicator to the conical flask and put the conical flask under the burette open the tap, and you are looking for the first colour change that lasts for approximately 10 seconds, repeat the titration until you have 3 results within . 1 of each other. In my titrations I did 4, the first result was 22. 6ml used, the second was 23. 1ml, third was 22. 7ml and the final one was 22. 8ml. Now the calculation for the molarity of the acid can be solved. The first step in working out the concentration of the unknown acid is balancing the equation. The equation for our experiment is: NaOH + HCl i NaCl + H2O and this equation is already balanced because there is 1 atom of Na on each side, 1 atom of O on each side, 2 atoms of H on either side and 1 atom of Cl on each side. So this reaction is a 1:1 reaction. The reasons this is a 1:1 reaction can be found in the periodic table, the RMM of each side of the equation has to be the same and to work this out you need the atomic mass, Na=23, O=16, H=1 (x2) and Cl=35. The atomic mass is the larger of the two numbers on the periodic table found with an element. The total of these atomic masses is 76. And it is exactly the same on the other side it is just that the compounds are different, this is due to the groups on the periodic table that they are in and that determines the bonds between atoms. The equation to work out the concentration of the unknown acid is: moles x 1000 ? average titration. The average titration is all the titration results added together and divided by 4, but we are going to discard the 23. 1ml result because it isn’t close enough to the other three so is recognised as an anomaly, so (22. 6 + 22. 7 +22. 8)? 3 = 22. 7cm? so now using the equation you can work out the concentration of the acid. (0. 0248 x 1000)? 22. 7 = 0. 1093, the actual concentration of the acid was 0. 0984. My predicted concentration is 0. 0109 above the actual concentration this could be due to inaccuracies with the measuring of the mass of NaOH to begin with also wrongly measuring the amount of my standard solution was used to titrate the acid.