check the box under each compound that exists as a pair of cis/trans isomers. if none of them do, check the none of the above box under the table.

ho−c(oh)=ch−oh
□

cl−c(ch₃, cl)=c−ch₃
□

ho−c(ch₃, ch₃)=c−oh
□

ch₃−ch=ch₂
□

□none of the above

Question

check the box under each compound that exists as a pair of cis/trans isomers. if none of them do, check the none of the above box under the table.

ho−c(oh)=ch−oh
□

cl−c(ch₃, cl)=c−ch₃
□

ho−c(ch₃, ch₃)=c−oh
□

ch₃−ch=ch₂
□

□none of the above

Accepted Answer

# Explanation:
To determine if a compound has cis/trans isomers, we check the following conditions for the double bond ($C = C$):
1. Each carbon in the double bond must be bonded to two different groups (atoms or groups of atoms).

## Step 1: Analyze the first compound ($HO - C = CH - OH$)
The left carbon in $C = C$ is bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$, and the right carbon is bonded to $H$ and $ - OH$. Wait, no, let's re - examine. The left carbon: $HO - C=$ (so bonded to $HO -$ and $O$ (from $OH$ on itself? Wait, no, the structure is $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$. Wait, the double - bonded carbons: the first $C$ (with $OH$ and $HO -$) and the second $C$ (with $H$ and $ - OH$). The second carbon is bonded to $H$ and $ - OH$, and the first is bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$. But the key is: for cis/trans, each carbon of the double bond must have two different substituents. Wait, the second carbon ($CH$) is bonded to $H$ and $ - CH - OH$? No, maybe I misread. Let's look at the second compound: $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$. Wait, no, the second compound is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? No, the given structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, no, the second compound is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the first compound: $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$. The double - bonded carbons: $C(OH)$ and $CH$. The $CH$ carbon is bonded to $H$ and $ - CH - OH$? No, maybe a better approach:

For a compound to have cis - trans isomerism, the two carbons of the double bond must each have two different groups attached.

1. First compound: $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$
   - The carbon on the left of the double bond ($C$): bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$ (two different groups? Wait, $HO -$ and $OH$ are similar in a way, but more importantly, the carbon on the right ($CH$) is bonded to $H$ and $ - CH - OH$? No, actually, the right - hand carbon of the double bond is bonded to $H$ and $ - OH$ (from the $CH - OH$ group). Wait, no, the structure is $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$, so the double - bonded carbons: $C_1$ (with $HO -$ and $OH$) and $C_2$ (with $H$ and $ - OH$). The $C_2$ is bonded to $H$ and $ - OH$, and $C_1$ is bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$. But the key is: for $C = C$ isomerism, each carbon must have two different substituents. The $C_2$ has $H$ and $ - OH$ (different), and $C_1$ has $HO -$ and $OH$ (different). Wait, but maybe I made a mistake. Let's check the second compound: $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$ (wait, no, the structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? No, the given structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the second compound is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the correct way: the second compound is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? No, the structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the double - bonded carbons: each carbon is bonded to two different groups? The left carbon: $Cl$ and $CH_3$, the right carbon: $Cl$ and $CH_3$. Wait, no, that would be the same groups on each carbon? Wait, no, the left carbon: $Cl$ and $CH_3$, the right carbon: $Cl$ and $CH_3$. So it is a case of cis - trans isomerism because the two carbons of the double bond have the same two substituents ($Cl$ and $CH_3$) but in different arrangements. Wait, no, if both carbons have the same two substituents, then cis - trans is possible. Wait, let's check the third compound: $HO - C(CH_3)=C(CH_3)-OH$. The two carbons of the double bond are each bonded to $CH_3$ and $HO -$ (for the first $C$) and $CH_3$ and $ - OH$ (for the second $C$). Wait, the two carbons have the same substituents ($CH_3$ and $HO -$ or $ - OH$? No, the first $C$ is bonded to $HO -$ and $CH_3$, the second $C$ is bonded to $CH_3$ and $ - OH$. Wait, but $HO -$ and $ - OH$ are the same group? No, $HO -$ is $ - OH$ on the left carbon. Wait, no, the structure is $HO - C(CH_3)=C(CH_3)-OH$, so both carbons of the double bond are bonded to $CH_3$ and $ - OH$ (the first $C$ has $HO -$ (which is $ - OH$) and $CH_3$, the second $C$ has $CH_3$ and $ - OH$). So both carbons have the same two substituents ($CH_3$ and $ - OH$), but wait, no, the first $C$ has $HO -$ (which is $ - OH$) and $CH_3$, the second $C$ has $CH_3$ and $ - OH$. So actually, both carbons have $CH_3$ and $ - OH$ as substituents. But in this case, since both carbons have the same two substituents, is there cis - trans? Wait, no, if a carbon in the double bond has two identical substituents, then cis - trans is not possible. Wait, the third compound: $HO - C(CH_3)=C(CH_3)-OH$, each carbon of the double bond is bonded to $CH_3$ and $ - OH$ (the first $C$ has $HO -$ (which is $ - OH$) and $CH_3$, the second $C$ has $CH_3$ and $ - OH$). So one carbon has $ - OH$ and $CH_3$, the other also has $ - OH$ and $CH_3$. So it is symmetric, and there is no cis - trans isomerism.

The fourth compound: $CH_3 - CH = CH_2$. The right - hand carbon of the double bond is bonded to two $H$ atoms. So it does not satisfy the condition for cis - trans isomerism (since one carbon has two identical substituents, $H$ atoms).

Now, the second compound: $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$ (wait, no, the structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the given structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the double - bonded carbons: the first carbon is bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$, the second carbon is bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$. Wait, no, that would be the same groups on each carbon? Wait, no, the first carbon: $Cl$ and $CH_3$, the second carbon: $Cl$ and $CH_3$. Wait, no, actually, the first carbon is bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$, the second carbon is bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$. Wait, that means that for the double bond, each carbon has two different groups ($Cl$ and $CH_3$). So cis - trans isomerism is possible here. Wait, no, if both carbons have the same two groups, then it is a case of cis - trans. Wait, let's correct: the second compound is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? No, the structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, the left carbon of the double bond: bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$, the right carbon: bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$. So it is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, no, the correct structure is $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$? Wait, maybe I misread. Let's re - express the second compound: $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$ is actually $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$, so the two carbons of the double bond: each has $Cl$ and $CH_3$ as substituents. So this compound can have cis - trans isomers.

Wait, the first compound: $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$. The double - bonded carbons: the first $C$ (with $OH$ and $HO -$) and the second $C$ (with $H$ and $ - OH$). The second carbon is bonded to $H$ and $ - OH$, and the first is bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$. But the second carbon has $H$ and $ - OH$ (different), and the first has $HO -$ and $OH$ (different). Wait, but $HO -$ and $OH$ are the same group? No, $HO -$ is $ - OH$ on the left carbon. Wait, no, the structure is $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$, so the first carbon is $C(OH)$ (bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$) and the second carbon is $CH$ (bonded to $H$ and $ - OH$). So the second carbon has $H$ and $ - OH$, the first has $HO -$ (which is $ - OH$) and $OH$ (wait, no, $HO -$ is $ - OH$ and $OH$ is also $ - OH$? No, that can't be. I think I made a mistake in analyzing the first compound. Let's start over.

The correct rule for cis - trans isomerism (geometric isomerism) in alkenes:

A compound with a carbon - carbon double bond ($C = C$) exhibits cis - trans isomerism if and only if each of the two carbons of the double bond is bonded to two different groups (atoms or groups of atoms).

1. Compound 1: $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$
   - Carbon 1 (of $C = C$): bonded to $HO -$ and $OH$ (wait, $HO -$ and $OH$ are the same as $ - OH$ and $ - OH$? No, $HO -$ is $ - OH$ and the other $OH$ is also $ - OH$? So carbon 1 has two $ - OH$ groups? No, the structure is $HO - C(OH)=CH - OH$, so the first carbon is $C$ with $HO -$ (a group) and $OH$ (a group), and the second carbon is $CH$ with $H$ and $ - OH$. Wait, no, the double bond is between $C(OH)$ and $CH$. So carbon 1 ($C(OH)$): substituents are $HO -$ and $OH$ (but $HO -$ is $ - OH$ and $OH$ is also $ - OH$? That would mean carbon 1 has two identical substituents ($ - OH$), so no cis - trans.

2. Compound 2: $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$
   - Carbon 1 (of $C = C$): bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$ (two different groups).
   - Carbon 2 (of $C = C$): bonded to $Cl$ and $CH_3$ (two different groups).
   - So this compound satisfies the condition for cis - trans isomerism.

3. Compound 3: $HO - C(CH_3)=C(CH_3)-OH$
   - Carbon 1 (of $C = C$): bonded to $HO -$ (or $ - OH$) and $CH_3$.
   - Carbon 2 (of $C = C$): bonded to $CH_3$ and $ - OH$.
   - Wait, carbon 1 has $ - OH$ and $CH_3$, carbon 2 has $CH_3$ and $ - OH$. So both carbons have the same two substituents ($CH_3$ and $ - OH$). In this case, since the two substituents on each carbon are the same as the substituents on the other carbon, is there cis - trans? No, because if we swap the groups, it's the same as the original? Wait, no, actually, if a carbon in the double bond has two identical substituents, then cis - trans is not possible. Wait, carbon 1: $ - OH$ and $CH_3$, carbon 2: $CH_3$ and $ - OH$. So it's symmetric, and there is no cis - trans isomerism (because the two groups on each carbon are the same as the groups on the other carbon, so flipping would not create a new isomer).

4. Compound 4: $CH_3 - CH = CH_2$
   - Carbon 2 (of $C = C$): bonded to two $H$ atoms (identical substituents), so no cis - trans.

So only the second compound ($Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$) has cis - trans isomers.

# Answer:
The box under the compound $Cl - C(CH_3)=C(Cl)-CH_3$ (the second compound in the table) should be checked.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Step 1: Analyze the first compound (\(HO - C = CH - OH\))

Answer: