This article made by the NASA says that O2 can be broken down into 2 simpler O atoms.
This article made by the FAU, one of the largest research universities in Germany, says that the N2 triple bond can be broken down with calcium, breaking the molecule down into 2 N
Conclusion: As O2 and N2 can be broken down into simpler substances, they are NOT elements.
The definition of an element you present here is quite true. The simplest chemical form of a substance that cannot be broken down into smaller units by chemical reactions.
The evidence you came up with after that, show O2 and N2 are degradable substances, thus opposing the definition of an element. So, as you wrote correctly, the conclusion is, they cannot be considered as elements.
Here is extremely important how we “play” with the English words in our mind. Here is most misunderstandings emerge. People read the text or watch the video, believing they have understood it correctly, and their understanding is an undisputable fact, almost a law in that subject area!
This tendency and the self-centric vision is quite common especially among some young students who scores high in their high-school exams. When they go through ages with an education at the academic level, and learn some philosophy of science, they realize how wrong they have been doing and looking at science.
For me it is not surprising that once in a while I meet youngsters graduated from high-school who try to promote themselvs over a person with academic education and years of experience in studying and activity in the life sciences area. They usually stick to one definition from one single source - which they have misunderstood - and use it to downgrade the others while upgrade themselvs. When asking them, why can’t you come up with one single academic text or source that confirms yours, they cannot present anything.
So far, I have not seen any academic sources proclaiming that O2, N2 or any other multiatomic molecules are called “elements”.
An “element” is not the same as an “elementary substance” which some people equate them! This is a proper example of misunderstanding.
I also found more resources that are not IB or high school books that share the same point. They are all Italian so it might be helpful:
Le sostanze pure che non possono essere scomposte in sostanze più semplici sono dette elementi. (F. Tottola, A. Allegrezza, M. Righetti, Nuovo corso di chimica, Minerva Italica, 2009)
Un elemento è una sostanza che non può essere scissa in sostanze più semplici. (N. J. Tro, Chimica oggi, Petrini, 2008)
Le sostanze che possono essere scomposte in altre sostanze si chiamano composti, quelle che non sono scomponibili in altre sostanze sono chiamate elementi. (E. Bagatti, A. Desco, E. Corradi, C. Ropa, A tutta chimica, Zanichelli, 2008)
Gli elementi sono sostanze pure non ulteriormente decomponibili in sostanze più semplici. (M. Crippa, D. Nepgen, Al centro della chimica, Mondadori Education, 2010)
Un elemento è una sostanza pura non scindibile in sostanze pure più semplici. (F. Randazzo, P. Stroppa, Chimica Una scienza attenta al futuro, A. Mondadori Scuola, 2007)
Le sostanze pure a loro volta si distinguono in due categorie: elementi, o sostanze semplici, che non si possono decomporre in altre ancora più semplici composti, sostanze che si possono ulteriormente decomporre in quanto formate da altre più semplici. (S. Rodato, 1/ libro di chimica, CLITT, 2008)
Si definisce elemento una sostanza pura che non può essere scomposta in sostanze più semplici. (S. Passannanti, C Sbriziolo, Chimica attiva, Tramontana, 2008)
Si definisce elemento una sostanza pura che non può essere trasformata, con gli ordinari mezzi chimici, in altre sostanze ancora più semplici. (G. Valitutti, A. Tifi, A. Gentile. Le idee della chimica, Zanichelli, 2008)
I think all of these are enough so I’m gonna go ahead and submit my report.
In fact we need the authors of the exam questions to prove their answer by presenting any reliable academic source which proclaims that O2 and N2 are “elements” and called “elements”.
@system thanks a lot for providing forum members with a clear path to making an appeal, and @camilavelasco thanks for providing great resources to strengthen the appeal, they should be included in your communication.
As I mentioned previously, let us make sure to keep the context of the question at the forefront of the appeal as well. It is worth mentioning that the question specifically asks candidates about the chemical constituents of air, which contain the naturally occurring molecules O2 and N2 (rather than just providing academic definitions for what an element is, which of course should be included in the appeal; however it is important to keep the semantics of the question in mind too).
I will not be submitting another appeal at this time pursuant to the one I submitted yesterday as MUR has not responded yet. I will wait for a response first. I urge others who are in agreement to proceed in a method similar to what Reza and Camila outlined, providing resources from your own research if necessary.
Hello! I’m so sorry to bother, but I was wondering in the case the appeal is accepted, for those of us who answered the question correctly, do you know if we would lose the point? Thank you!
You do not bother. You’re welcome.
I don’t think anybody loses any points. If they accept the appeal, it would be because they admit they have made an error themselves by either being wrong or being ambiguous in their question.
If they admit it, it will probably end in points to those who also has answered “elements=1, molecules=4”. But of course, I cannot be sure.
yes ，Cisia did not make mistakes. Because “elements” have two meanings.
the first meaning ： H ，He， Li ，Be ，B，C，N，O，F，Ne…
the second meaning ：
Pure substances composed of two different types of atoms------- compounds
Pure substances consisting of only one type of atom------elements.
Find just one academic source that states precisely and directly that N2 and/or O2 are “elements”.
N2 and O2 are not elements, but elemental or an elementary substance. There is a major difference between these definitions.
Besides, if N2 and O2 are elements, they must show up in The Periodic System of Elements as N2 and O2!
But they do not.
If CISIA (or any academic source) states precisely that N2 and O2 are elements, insert a link here please, otherwise it would be your understanding of their definition, and not what they are stating.
I did not have enough time to come up with further arguments which I was able to come with, but I think I have brought the message to them. Now we have passed the deadline, we must wait and see whether they have a counter-argument for that which I doubt very much.
Thanks to everybody who tried to react to this anomaly.
Thank you for being engaged and trying to fix this mistake. Hopefully they somehow amend it since this way they would give points to people who had it wrong and take away points from people who had it right. Thanks a lot again.
I also submitted feedback on this issue on the 22nd. All textbooks and specialized websites state that H, O, N, Br, F, etc. are elements or atoms and exist as molecules of H2, O2, N2, Br2, F2 when two atoms are combined.
I hope they will fix this.
Source: Chemistry: A Molecular Approach 5th edition
Textbook by Nivaldo J. Tro
I’m assuming that none of you, like myself, have yet received a response from MUR concerning the above despite the anonymous results having been published.
My question is, do you think that this might still be taken into consideration for the Oct. 31/Nov. 7 publications, or should we consider our scores as final?
Personally, I did not expect any direct personal reply to my appeal. Normally, such cases end up as an announcement at the administrators website in case they confirm their mistake.
Now, since we have received the anonymous results, and we have not seen any reaction from the MUR, chances for amendment of the evaluation in this case become much weaker, but I personally think that there is a very small chance that they might include a note in our personal results on Tuesday 31st. I believe they will not announce anything on November 7th when national ranking is published because everything must be resolved at that time.
I also find it necessary to mention to those candidates that think they have been right regarding O2 and N2 being “elements”, because the MUR has not acknowledged our appeal, a “rejection” of an appeal is not the same as confirmation of correctness/validity of the opposite. A rejection may be due to several reasons which is out of the scope of this space, but I can name some without explanation:
1- longer administration of the results before the deadline
2- the authors have difficulty in finding themselves formulating a low-quality ambiguous/wrong question
3- economic expenses
4- low number of appeals (especially not every candidate is a member of imat.entermedschool.com and therefore has not been aware of our appeal case)
5- etc.
For me, it is quite concrete solid that there is no academic source that writes, reads, mentions, teaches or presents O2, N2, S8, P5, C4 etc. as elements otherwise they must have been implemented in the periodic table of elements as O2, N2, S8, P5, C4 etc.! On the other hand, there are several sources which directly mention/write/present elements as many as 118 species only.
