The periodic trend for electronegativity is similar to what other trend? a. the trend for shielding. b. the trend for ionic radii c. the trend for atomic radii d. the trend for first ionization energy

Option D: The trend for first ionization energy.

Electronegativity is defined as tendency of an atom of element to attract electron pair towards itself. On moving left to right in a period, electronegativity increases  due to increase in nuclear charge and on moving top to bottom in a group, it decreases due to increase of distance between nucleus and outermost shell.

Shielding decreases with increase in electronegativity. If the nuclear charge gets shielded by inner electrons, outer electrons will experience less nuclear charge and the tendency of an atom to attract electron/s decreases or electronegativity decreases. Thus, electronegativity trends can not be similar to the trends of shielding. Option A is wrong.

Ionic radius is defined as distance between the nucleus and outermost shell of an ion (charged atom) and atomic radius is distance between the nucleus and outermost shell of an atom. On moving left to right in a period, atomic and ionic radius decreases because  nuclear charge increases and it pulls the outer electrons more towards itself resulting decrease in size. Similarly, on moving top to bottom in a group, atomic and ionic radius increases due to addition of an extra period. Therefore, option B and C are wrong.

Ionization energy is the amount of energy needed to remove an electron from outer most shell of an atom. On moving left to right in a period, it increases due to increase in  nuclear charge, as outer electrons are more attracted to the nucleus. On moving top to bottom, due to increase in size, ionization energy decrease because small amount of energy is required to remove the outer shell electron/s. Therefore, trends for first ionization energy are similar to electronegativity trends and option D is correct.

when—without warning—something provokes your anger, you may struggle not to succumb to it. since what typically makes you mad is feeling powerless in the face of what seems unfair, your anger is mostly an attempt at a “quick fix” to right the balance. it’s as though you’re raising a fist in protest, proclaiming that you’re not going to capitulate to such injustice.

there are, however, a multitude of problems related to this immediate, push-back reaction of anger. and probably the key one is that almost never does it resolve the issue that gave rise to it. such reactive anger is probably best understood as self-defeating. as david burns, the author of the seminal self- book feeling good, observes: if realistically, acting on your anger is to make any sense, it needs to meet two criteria—which, in almost every case, is frankly impossible. that is, your anger must:

be directed toward a person who has intentionally (and needlessly) behaved in a hurtful way toward you; and

be beneficial or advantageous to you (i.e., assist you in achieving a desired goal).

i think you’ll agree that only rarely can you claim that your anger is both warranted and , whether to yourself or the relationship.

so let me offer you a two-step alternative to abandoning your better judgment and giving in to the temptation of anger—one that should neutralize your anger in seconds. or, when you’re really angry, in minutes.

but keep in mind that you must really want to execute these steps, be sufficiently motivated to perform them. which means overcoming more unconscious resistance than you might ever have imagined. because there are many immediate “advantages” of anger that can interfere with your resolve, i’ll suggest a few of them that might interfere with your employing this powerful method to rid yourself of counter-productive anger.

explanation: