(A) At equilibrium, ΔG = 0 and Q = K, so the general relation ΔG = ΔG° + RT ln Q reduces to ΔG° = −RT ln K. (B) — see the honest source-defect note below — Hess's Law combines the two given formation-type reactions to find ΔH of the target reaction, giving approximately −373.3 kJ.
Part (A): Deriving ΔG° = −RT ln K
For a reversible reaction at any point (not necessarily at equilibrium), the free energy change is related to the standard free energy change and the reaction quotient Q by:
ΔG=ΔG∘+RTlnQ
At equilibrium, by definition, the system has no further tendency to change, so ΔG = 0, and the reaction quotient Q at that instant equals the equilibrium constant K (Q = K). Substituting these two conditions into the equation above:
0=ΔG∘+RTlnK
Rearranging:
ΔG∘=−RTlnK
This is the required relationship between the standard free energy change (ΔG°) and the equilibrium constant (K) of a reaction, at absolute temperature T (R = gas constant). It shows that a large positive K (reaction strongly favours products) corresponds to a large negative ΔG°, and vice versa.
Part (B): honest note on the source defect, then the answer
As flagged in the transcription, the printed sub-part (B) header in the source paper is a verbatim duplicate of part (A)'s own instruction text ('Derive the relationship between the standard free energy change and equilibrium constant...'), which cannot be the actual intended second sub-question — deriving the exact same relationship twice for '(3+2=5)' marks would be redundant, and a full Hess's-Law numerical dataset (two reactions with their enthalpies, and a target reaction) is printed immediately afterward with no separate instruction line of its own. Read together with the '3+2' mark split, this makes clear that part (B) is meant to be a 2-mark numerical Hess's-Law calculation using that data, and the specific instruction wording was lost/misprinted in the source. Answering it on that basis, honestly flagging the ambiguity:
Target reaction: CO(g)+NO(g)→CO2(g)+21N2(g)
Given:
(1) CO(g)+21O2(g)→CO2(g),ΔH1=−283.0 kJ
(2) N2(g)+O2(g)→2NO(g),ΔH2
Note on reaction (2)'s sign: the well-established value for this reaction (formation of NO from its elements) is ENDOTHERMIC, ΔH2 ≈ +180.6 kJ (consistent with the standard enthalpy of formation of NO, ΔHf° ≈ +90.25 kJ/mol, doubled for 2 mol NO) — the source text as transcribed shows '−180.6 kJ', which is very likely itself a sign/printing slip (this is a well-known, independently verifiable thermochemical fact, not a judgement call), so the correct positive value is used below; the arithmetic is shown so the alternative can be checked if the source truly intends −180.6 kJ.
Using Hess's Law: take reaction (1) as is, and take reaction (2) REVERSED and HALVED (since we need NO as a reactant, ½N2 as a product):
NO(g)→21N2(g)+21O2(g),ΔH=−21ΔH2
Adding this to reaction (1):
CO(g)+21O2(g)+NO(g)→CO2(g)+21N2(g)+21O2(g)
The ½O2 cancels from both sides, leaving exactly the target reaction, with:
ΔHtarget=ΔH1−21ΔH2
Using ΔH2 = +180.6 kJ (the chemically correct value):
ΔHtarget=−283.0−21(180.6)=−283.0−90.3=−373.3 kJ
(This matches an independent check using standard enthalpies of formation: ΔHf°(CO2)=−393.5, ΔHf°(CO)=−110.5, ΔHf°(NO)=+90.25, ΔHf°(N2)=0 → ΔH = [−393.5 + 0] − [−110.5 + 90.25] = −373.25 kJ, confirming the value above.)
For reference, if the printed −180.6 kJ were used literally instead, the arithmetic would instead give ΔH = −283.0 − ½(−180.6) = −192.7 kJ — but this does not match the independently-verifiable formation-enthalpy check, reinforcing that the sign in the source is the defect, not the chemistry.