1) It’s more worth it (more ‘wu hua’ instead of ‘bo hua’ in
hokkien) for the universe to expand the 1st and 2nd endothermic
ionization energies required to generate dipositive Grp II cations,
because the resulting exothermic lattice energy compensates
adequately and even profitably (ie. ‘wu hua’
. If the universe were to expand less energy (‘cheapskate’
efforts/investments yield ‘cheapskate’ results/profits) to ionize
only to generate unipositive Grp II cations, the much smaller
exothermic lattice energy that results either doesn’t adequately
compensate the endothermic ionization energy expanded in absolute
values (ie. profits don’t cover costs, therefore net loss), or
doesn’t compensate as much (as in the case of dipositive Grp II
cations), (ie. why invest only $10 to make only $20 profit, when we
can invest $20 and make $80 profit!).
2) Dinitration would occur, in the two positions para to the
phenolic groups. Each phenol group donates strongly by resonance,
so even if the nitro group withdraws electrons (by both induction
and resonance) and hence deactivates the benzene ring (ie. making
it a weaker nucleophile), but two phenol groups activates the
benzene ring (ie. making the it a stronger nucleophile)
sufficiently for dinitration to occur. Para positions (instead of
ortho) because of steric hinderance. Not meta because phenol
donates by resonance (further explanation lookup my Collection of
Chem qns thread; not required at ‘A’ levels).
3) Amines (primary amines have less steric hinderance and thus
are more effective nucleophiles) and phenols are both nucleophilic.
Iodine is a good leaving group because iodide ions are very stable
(due to electronegativity and large ionic radius to stabilize the
negative formal/ionic charge). Hence SN2
nucleophilic substitution occurs (not SN1
because methyl carbocation is too unstable).
4) Sulfur dioxide reduces dichromate(VI) to chromium(III), and
is itself oxidized to sulfate(VI). No other available ligands, so
water functions as the ligands to generate the
hexaaquochromium(III) ion.
5) You’re using standard redox potentials. Obviously we’re not
gonna use standard molarities to carry out these redox reactions.
So yes, bromide ions are oxidized to molecular bromine, and are
able to reduce sulfate(VI) ions to sulfur dioxide (aka sulfur(IV)
oxide). Notice the change in O.S. of sulfur from +6 to +4. In
contrast, with iodide ions (larger ionic radius results in greater
reducing power), the O.S. of sulfur is reduced from +6 all the way
to -2 in hydrogen sulfide gas.