Midterm

1) Analyses of the media are integral to whatever social problems critical constructionists study; explain why this is so.


The media is thought to create many complex effects, many of which are negative. Media is a huge part of our daily lives, and it’s almost impossible to escape it’s effects without removing oneself completely from society. Because of it’s affect on society, it can be claimed to be either the cause or in someway related to almost every social problem, which is why analyzing it is essential to critical constructionists' study of social problems.
Media within the United States is completely out of hand. What our news stations play is being significantly influenced by their commercial advertisements, so we aren’t getting all the important news stories from the sources that many Americans are completely dependent upon. The “chances that a problem will receive much attention - or have societal resources mobilized against it - are almost nil without media coverage” (Heiner, 17). The media has also been blamed “for promoting violence and sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, and other oppressive phenomena” (Kellner,1). It is important that change occurs within the U.S. media structure because “Brent Cunningham writes in the Columbia Journalism Review ‘the press has the power to shape how people think about what’s important, in effect to shape reality’ “(Heiner, 17).
The film Toxic Sludge is Good for You explains that the public relations industry is a multibillion dollar industry controlled by the advertisement industry and it’s job is to manipulate public opinion, news information, and public policy on behalf of it’s clients. In order to challenge it’s hold on U.S. ‘democracy’, more people need to question the experts and be aware of how public relations is spending it’s money. Critical Constructionist are among the people who are aware extent to which the public relation industry is creating issues, which is why it is integral to the social problems that they study.

2.) A. State some evidence that since the 70s the American middle class hasn’t prospered as much as is commonly believed.

It is commonly believed that in the United States that our economy has been greatly prospering sense the 1970s, but it hasn’t as much as we tend to think it has. Our economic growth has dramatically slowed down; “between 1947 and 1973 real family incomes went up 104 percent; during the next 32 years, it only increased 23 percent. And the gap between the rich and the rest started its precipitous expansion.” (Heiner, 31). The United State’s huge amount of inequality plays a large part in the inhibition of it’s once rapidly growing and prospering economy. There is so much inequality here because “Americans are unusually supportive of inequality. They back the moves toward expanding opportunity, but oppose moves toward equalizing outcomes” (Eitzen, 52). A small present of America’s people and companies have become very wealthy sense the 70s, but the majority of people and businesses have been have on average been making less than ever (Heiner, 36).



B. Explain what part individualism plays in exacerbating and lessening the social problem of class inequality in the U.S.

People in the United States tend to have individualistic views, where oneself’ “success” is more important than helping one another. It is the American Dream-if you work hard you will become rich and get all the material possessions that you would ever want and will have a perfect life. It is because these ideas of individualism and what our image of a perfect life would be, constantly being reinforced by media and the culture of our society, that egocentrism is exacerbated along with social inequality.
In our capitalistic society, it was hoped that if everyone perused their individual “interests in a market of free competition, the the best quality products will be made at the lowest possible prices and the society will thrive”(Heiner, 136), unfortunately this didn’t happen quite like it was wanted to. The U.S. has an enormous gap in social class and a great poverty problem. The American Dream inspires and motivates people to work hard, but also provides us with “winners and losers”-the rich and the poor (Heiner, 136).
The majority of U.S. people are in the working class, with a rising gap between them and the rich, and an increasing number of people living below the poverty line. Although individualism in our country has created a huge social class problem, it also created a very large working class in which there is some equality between one another. The rich people dominate the others with power, politically and socially, because they can use their money make things happen that the others can’t. Something needs to be done to help stop the increase in inequality because “extreme inequality of income and wealth gives vast economic and political power to big corporations and wealthy families and weakens the sense of community and common purpose essential to a democracy”, (Eitzen, 45).
Americans are brought up to want to be rich. The media is constantly telling us that we should buy this or that. Reality television shows usually take place in huge luxurious homes. And we are taught that we need to be able to buy big expensive things in order to be successful, and to obtain those things we must individually peruse them. Americans look after them instead of working together like other societies do, causing social inequality.

Titration Analysis of Weak Acid Solutions: Potassium Hydrogen Phthalate and Citric Acid in Fruit Juice

Introduction
The purpose of this lab is to determine citric acid concentration in fruit juice. The purpose was achieved by using titration methods. The first step was standardizing a strong base and sodium hydroxide. NaOH is hydroscopic and had to be standardized, which was achieved using KHP. The second part of this lab was using the standardized base to determine the concentration of citric acid in grape juice. Methods were done similarly to the ones done in part one, finding the neutralization point of the base and acid using titration. Many calculations were done as the last step in the lab. To cary out this lab an analytical balance, a buret, Erlenmeyer flasks, a bottle, and a graduated cylinder were used.

Procedure
To begin, a standard solution of sodium hydroxide was created by dissolving NaOH pellets and mixing the resulting solution with the contents of a 500 mL bottle full of dissolved water.
Four samples of KHP were weighed and their masses recorded. Each of these samples were put into separate Erlenmeyer flasks. Distilled water and and phenolphthalein were added to each then they were mixed and covered. The buret was cleaned. It was then filled to the top with the sodium hydroxide solution and drained until it reached 0.00 mL. Each of the KHP samples were titrated-NaOH was released into the flask until the indicator turned pink. The molaritys were calculated for each trial, and the average and standard deviation found.
A pipet was used to accurately measure 10 mL of white grape juice, which was then weighed and it’s mass recorded. Three Erlenmeyer flasks had the appropriate amount of distilled water, indicator, and juice in them. They were then titrated and the mL need for each were recorded. The molaritys of citric acid in the juice sample, and the weight/weight and the weight/volume percents of citric acid were calculated for each of the trials, along with the averages and standard deviations.

For detailed procedure refer to reference 1.

Results
Table 1 shows the mass of KHP used, the initial buret volume, the final buret volumes, and the concentration of sodium hydroxide for each trial.
Table 1. Data collected during standardization of NaOH with KHP.
Sample Mass KHP (g) Initial Buret Volume (mL) Final Buret Volume (mL) [NaOH]
1 0.4005 0.00 43.30 0.04529
2 0.4003 0.00 41.20 0.04757
3 0.3991 0.00 43.30 0.04513
4 0.3998 0.00 45.80 0.04470
Average [NaOH] of the closest three was 0.04970 ± 0.0003051.


Table 2 shows the volume of juice, the initial buret volume, and final buret volume for each of the trials that were using the white grape juice.
Table 2. Data collected during the titration of white grape juice with standardized NaOH.
Sample Volume Juice (mL) Initial Buret Volume (mL) Final Buret Volume (mL)
1 10.00 0.00 18.80
2 10.00 0.00 18.35
3 10.00 0.00 18.05

Table three shows the citric acid concentration, the weight/weight percent, and the weight to volume percent of citric acid in the final solution. The calculations done to get these results can be found in the attached pages. The averages and standard deviations were calculated using Excel.
Table 3. Citric acid concentration (mol/L), wt/wt %, and wt/vol % citric acid in white grape juice.

Sample Citric acid concentration (mol/L) Wt/wt % citric acid Wt/vol % citric acid
1 0.7986 0.514 0.542
2 0.8182 0.502 0.529
3 0.8318 0.494 0.526
Average 0.8162 0.503 0.532
Standard deviation 0.01669 0.0101 0.00850

References

1. General Chemistry Experiments: A Manual for Chemistry 204, 205, and 206, Department of Chemistry, Southern Oregon University: Ashland, OR, 2009

Social movements would probably be much more effective if they kept to their main goals rather than broadening their goals. The social movements that seem to really make a difference are the ones that have a single main goal in which a large percentage of society can happily back up. Unfortunately this rarely happens, because “as social movements grow, they tend to incorporate more groups with a broader range of goals and more diverse tactics” (Meyer, 425). As the number of goals grows, the people of the movement get distracted with the smaller goals, which can allow for the original goals to get shot down easier.

Effect of Intermolecular Forces on Solubility

Introduction

The purpose of this lab was to explore intermolecular forces and solubility. The first step in achieving this purpose was to complete a variety of chemical reactions between alcohols and solvents and determine which were miscible/immiscible. The next step was to observe capillary action using glass and tygon tubes, with hexane and water. Next we reacted and observed solid iodine and copper sulfate with the solvents hexane and water. 3D models and statistics were created on Spartan of all the molecules we used in this lab, which allowed for greater understanding of what happened during the reactions.

Procedure

Samples of methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, and pentanol were all placed in separate vials of H₂O and were observed for reactions and it was decided which of the pairs of substances were miscible together and which were not. With new samples of the same alcohols, the same thing was done with hexane in place of the water. The results were recorded.

Two glass and two tygon tubes were obtained. One of each were individually touched to the surface of a beaker of water, the others touched to the surface of a beaker of hexane. The distance the liquids traveled up the tubing was measured and recorded.

Two vials of each the solutes (water, hexane, and a 50/50 water-hexane mix) were prepared. A piece of Iodine was placed in one of each type of solute, and a piece of copper sulfate was placed in the others. Each mixture was observed, mixed, and observed again. The results were then recorded.

The last part of the lab was using the computer program Spartan to create models of all the alcohol molecules and hexane. The charges of the ions in each molecule, and the dipole moment and direction were found and recorded.

Detailed procedures may be found in reference 1.

1. Results 

Table one shows the data from the solvent and alcohol reactions. The miscible 

(M) combinations were soluble with eachother. The immiscible (IM) combinations were seperated into layers.

Solvent	Alcohol (Solute)
	Methanol	Ethanol	Propanol	Butanol	Pentanol
Water	M	M	M	IM	IM
Hexane	IM	M	M	M	M

Table 1. Solvent and alcohol reaction results.

Table two shows how far the liquids went up the pieces of tubing in the capillary action part of the lab. The water reacted more with the glass than the tygon. The hexane reacted more with the tygon than the glass. 

Liquid	Capillary
	Glass	Tygon
Water	7mm	1mm
Hexane	5mm	14mm

Table 2. Capillary action experiment results. 

Table three shows the results of reacting the solvents with the solids. Both the iodine and the copper sulfate were miscible with water. The iodine was miscible with hexane but turned purple.  The copper sulfate was immiscible in hexane. With the water/hexane mixes had a mix of the results from the other combinations. 

Solvent	Solid
	I2	CuSO4
Water	M	M / dissolved completely
Hexane	M / purple	IM / stuck to sides
Water/Hexane Mix	PS / 1/2 purple, 1/2 NR	1/2 IM / stuck to sides until mixed

Table 3. Results from reacting water, hexane, and a water-hexane mixture, with solid iodine and copper sulfate.  

Discussion

The methanol, ethanol, and propanol have dipole-dipole forces with the water because they are all small polar molecules. Butanol and pentanol are such large molecules that their nonpolar part overpowers their OH^- group so they act like nonpolar molecules and therefore have london dispersion forces. Hexane is a nonpolar molecule so it likes to create london dispersion forces.

Solvent	Alcohol (Solute)
	Methanol	Ethanol	Propanol	Butanol	Pentanol
Water	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. Dipole-Dipole	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. Dipole-Dipole	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. Dipole-Dipole	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. LDF-LDF	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. LDF-LDF 3. LDF-LDF
Hexane	1. LDF-LDF 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. LDF-LDF	1. LDF-LDF 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. LDF-LDF	1. LDF-LDF 2. Dipole-Dipole 3. LDF-LDF	1. LDF-LDF 2. LDF-LDF 3. LDF-LDF	1. LDF-LDF 2. LDF-LDF 3. LDF-LDF

Table 4. The intermolecular forces of the alcohols and solvents. The #1s are the solute/solute forces, the #2s are the solvent/solvent forces, and the #3s are the solvent/solute forces. 

I₂ is a nonploar molecule so it tends to create london dispersion forces. CuSO₄ is a ionic molecule so it tends to create Ion-Dipole forces, which outweigh the other possible forces.

Solvent	Solid
	I2	CuSO4
Water	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. LDF-LDF 3. LDF-LDF	1. Dipole-Dipole 2. Ion-Dipole 3. Ion-Dipole
Hexane	1. LDF-LDF 2. LDF-LDF 3. LDF-LDF	1. LDF-LDF 2. Ion-Dipole 3. Ion-Dipole

Table 5. The intermolecular forces of the solids and solvents. The #1s are the solute/solute forces, the #2s are the solvent/solvent forces, and the #3s are the solvent/solute forces. 

In the capillary experiment of this lab, it was concluded that water reacted more with glass than tygon, and hexane reacted more with tygon than glass. This was because Intermolecular forces bind to similar molecules to one another. The water molecules attract to each other with cohesive forces. Water is polar and glass is also polar so they are attracted to each other with adhesive forces, which are stronger than the cohesive forces and pull the water up the tube. The same goes with hexane-tygon and hexane-glass combinations, but they have stronger cohesive forces. In the water-tygon combinations, the adhesive forces are nonexistent so  there wasn’t enough surface tension and the liquid had nothing to pull it up tube.

Liquid	Capillary
	Glass	Tygon
Water	Adhesive	Cohesive
Hexane	Cohesive	Cohesive

Table 6. Predominate intermolecular forces in the capillary action experiment.

Table seven shows the dipole moment sizes in Debyes, which were found using Spartan. Knowing the dipole moment sizes is useful in determining bond types and forces between molecules.

Molecule	Dipole moment (Debyes)
Water	2.20
Methanol	1.87
Ethanol	1.82
Propanol	1.84
Butanol	1.69
Pentanol	1.62
Hexane	0.00

Table 7. Dipole moment sizes of the molecules used during this lab. 

The dipole followed a trend of decreasing dipole moment size as the molecules got bigger (except for the propanol, which is probably not correct due to an error using the spartan program). This trend was expected, as the OH^-  group has less effect on the polarity on big molecules than small molecules.

References

1. General Chemistry Experiments: A Manual for Chemistry 204, 205, and 206, Department of Chemistry, Southern Oregon University: Ashland, OR, 2009