How do stereospecific and stereoselective differ?

• They mean exactly the same thing
• Stereospecific ties each start to its own product, stereoselective merely prefers one
• Stereoselective is stricter than stereospecific

In the ideal model, a planar intermediate is achiral with both faces equally open. What does the model predict for the product stereochemistry?

• It gives a racemic mix
• It always gives a single enantiomer
• It keeps the starting shape with no change at all

Clean inversion at a stereocentre argues for a backside attack.

One geometric isomer of starting material gives one product, the other isomer gives a different product. What is the reaction?

• Stereoselective but not stereospecific
• Unrelated to stereochemistry
• Stereospecific

A single enantiomer substrate gives a fully racemic product. What intermediate fits?

• A flat intermediate
• A concerted backside attack
• No intermediate at all

A reaction of one enantiomer gives product with clean inversion and no scrambling. In the ideal model, what do you rule out?

• A concerted backside attack
• A free planar intermediate with both faces open
• Any reaction at the stereocentre in any solvent

A student claims speed data alone prove a backside attack. Why is that weak?

• Speed data can never support any mechanism
• Stereochemistry testifies directly while speed only hints
• A fast reaction must be a backside attack

A student sees weak opposite rotation and declares competing pathways proven. What is missing?

• Nothing is missing; rotation alone proves it
• A faster reaction time would prove it
• A pure inverted reference with full conditions, plus other evidence; one shielded route fits too