This is a reasonably confusing graphic because our indicated O-H bond range is 3000-3300 broad. Should we edit where the question mark is and go with the more clear O-H bond here?
It’s a good example of where, and why, we need source citations with stuff like this. Claims like “nobody would identify” are not, on their own, sufficient for suggestions. It also leaves out that C-H is not the only group in that range.
Also for sure can’t just alter the text behind the cloze; that’s not fair to existing users and likely to sow a lot of confusion.
At a glance, UWorld does not differentiate that range as being inherently more likely to be C-H than O-H (could be C-H, O-H, or N-H in equal measure according to that source). Kaplan does list the range for -OH as not extending beneath 3100.
I dunno. In theory we could move the line up to 3100 but that doesn’t clarify things at all according to UWorld, and even at 3100 there are still multiple potential answers here, according to both sources (could easily be an amine, carboxylic acid, alkyne, alkene, etc.).
Bumping it up to 3100-3300 is probably net net the fairest solution, though we also need to make sure that we’re getting source citations from users on stuff like this (otherwise we’re gonna get another jacewov mode).
