What an inorganic chemistry viva can test
There is no single international format or syllabus for an inorganic chemistry viva. The topics, time allowed and assessment criteria depend on your course or examining body. Check your course handbook or the relevant official website for the details that apply to you; do not assume that the practice stations below match your assessment exactly.
For preparation, practise explaining chemical ideas aloud rather than only recognising them on a page. A useful answer usually does four things: states the conclusion, identifies the chemical evidence, links that evidence to a model or principle, and notes a limitation where one matters. For example, do not stop at “this complex is diamagnetic”. Say how many d electrons the metal has, how the ligand field affects their arrangement, and what that arrangement predicts about unpaired electrons.
The practice examiner strip below sets out the kinds of reasoning used in these examples. These are study emphases, not official criteria for any particular university or examination.
A MySummaries examiner strip for inorganic chemistry practice looks like this:
Build a small set of answerable stations
A station is more useful when it begins with a focused problem than when it asks you to “talk about inorganic chemistry”. Use your lecture notes, problem sheets and laboratory material to make prompts that require you to explain, predict or compare. Good prompts include a definite chemical species, a reaction, or a contrast between two structures.
Prepare more than one kind of prompt. A comparison tests whether you can identify the variable that changes; a reaction prompt tests whether you can track bonds, oxidation states and electron counts; a data prompt tests whether you can connect an observation to a chemical explanation. The examples below use coordination chemistry and organometallic chemistry, but the same approach works for solid-state chemistry, bioinorganic chemistry, main-group chemistry and other parts of your own syllabus.
For each station, give yourself a short practice target, record the answer, then review whether you supported each conclusion. The times shown in the examples are practice targets, not a statement about the timing of any real viva.
A MySummaries station list built from an inorganic chemistry board looks like this:
Station 1: spin state in an iron complex
This station tests whether you can move in a disciplined order from charge to electron count to ligand-field description. Resist the temptation to name a spin state before checking the oxidation state and d count.
A strong answer should say that six cyanide ligands each carry a −1 charge and the complex has an overall charge of −4, so iron is +2. Fe(II) is d6. In an octahedral complex, cyanide is a strong-field ligand, so the low-spin arrangement is t2g6 eg0. All six electrons are paired, predicting diamagnetism. State that this is a ligand-field prediction for the specified complex, rather than claiming that every iron complex has the same spin state.
A MySummaries recorded viva on this station could be marked like this:
Examiner
For [Fe(CN)6]4−, assign the iron oxidation state and d-electron count, then predict the spin state and magnetic behaviour.
Correctly used the six cyanide charges and overall charge to assign Fe(II).
ImproveSay explicitly that Fe(II) is d6 before describing the orbital filling.
Identified cyanide as strong field and gave the low-spin arrangement, but did not clearly name both orbital sets at first.
ImproveState t2g6 eg0 and connect it to the octahedral field.
Predicted diamagnetism but initially gave no direct link to the number of unpaired electrons.
ImproveFinish with: all six electrons are paired, so the complex is diamagnetic.
A strong answerEach cyanide ligand has a charge of −1, so six ligands contribute −6. The overall charge is −4, which means iron is in the +2 oxidation state. Fe(II) is d6, and in an octahedral strong field from cyanide the low-spin arrangement is t2g6 eg0. There are no unpaired d electrons, so the complex is predicted to be diamagnetic.
That is a MySummaries station, filled with inorganic chemistry material. Yours is written from your own notes. Start free
In your own practice, treat the first sentence as the answer, not the whole answer. If the examiner asks “why?”, return to the evidence: charge balance, d count and ligand-field strength. If you are unsure about a detail, state what you can establish and identify the uncertainty precisely. That is more useful than filling time with a broad description of iron chemistry.
Station 2: oxidative addition at palladium
This station checks whether you can describe the net chemical change without overclaiming a single mechanism. The prompt specifies a low-coordinate Pd(0) phosphine complex reacting with methyl iodide, CH3I. A typical oxidative-addition description is formation of Pd–CH3 and Pd–I bonds: palladium changes from oxidation state 0 to +2, and the coordination number at the metal increases by two. The product can be represented as a square-planar Pd(II) complex bearing methyl and iodide ligands, alongside the phosphines retained in the stated complex.
Be careful with electron counting: the precise total depends on the phosphine ligands and the starting species. In a simple neutral-ligand count, Pd(0) is d10; Pd(II) is d8. Do not claim a unique transition state or rate-determining step unless the question provides conditions or asks for a particular mechanism. Explain the formal change first, then qualify mechanistic details as dependent on the complex and reaction conditions.
A MySummaries recorded viva on this station could be marked like this:
Examiner
A low-coordinate Pd(0) phosphine complex reacts with CH3I. Describe the oxidative-addition product and what changes at the metal.
Identified oxidative addition and the new Pd–C and Pd–I bonds.
ImproveWrite the methyl group as CH3 and identify iodide as the second fragment from CH3I.
Gave Pd(0) to Pd(II), but the coordination-number change was implied rather than stated.
ImproveSay that formal oxidation state and coordination number each increase by two.
Recognised that ligand number matters, but briefly treated one mechanism as universal.
ImproveSeparate the net oxidative-addition description from mechanism, which depends on the complex and conditions.
A strong answerOxidative addition of CH3I forms a palladium–methyl bond and a palladium–iodide bond. Formally, palladium is oxidised from Pd(0) to Pd(II), while the coordination number increases by two. The Pd(0) centre is d10 and the Pd(II) centre is d8; the total electron count depends on which phosphine ligands remain bound. I would describe the net change first, because the detailed pathway can depend on the palladium complex and reaction conditions.
When reviewing an answer to this kind of prompt, check that you have tracked both fragments of the substrate. Naming “oxidative addition” alone does not show where the methyl and iodide groups go. Then check that you have distinguished formal oxidation state from electron count: related concepts, but not interchangeable descriptions.
Station 3: nickel geometry and magnetism
This comparison tests whether you can explain two different outcomes for the same metal oxidation state and d count. In both complexes, nickel is +2: four anionic ligands contribute −4, and the overall charge is −2. Ni(II) is d8. The ligand and geometry differ, so the electronic arrangements differ too.
For [Ni(CN)4]2−, the strong-field cyanide ligands favour a square-planar d8 arrangement with paired electrons; it is diamagnetic. For [NiCl4]2−, chloride is a weaker-field ligand and the complex is tetrahedral. The tetrahedral d8 arrangement has two unpaired electrons, so it is paramagnetic. Avoid saying only “cyanide is strong, chloride is weak”: connect ligand strength and geometry to the predicted magnetic behaviour.
A MySummaries recorded viva on this station could be marked like this:
Examiner
Explain why [Ni(CN)4]2− and [NiCl4]2− differ in geometry and magnetic behaviour.
Correctly assigned Ni(II), d8, in both complexes.
ImproveMake clear that the identical d count makes the ligand and geometry comparison the key issue.
Gave square-planar and tetrahedral geometries but did not fully link each to the ligand environment.
ImproveState that cyanide is strong field and chloride is weaker field in this comparison.
Correctly identified the square-planar complex as diamagnetic but was imprecise about the tetrahedral unpaired electrons.
ImproveState that tetrahedral d8 [NiCl4]2− has two unpaired electrons and is paramagnetic.
A strong answerBoth complexes contain Ni(II), because the four ligands carry a total charge of −4 and the complex charge is −2. Ni(II) is d8 in each case. Strong-field cyanide supports square-planar [Ni(CN)4]2−, where the d electrons are paired, so it is diamagnetic. Weaker-field chloride gives tetrahedral [NiCl4]2−, which has two unpaired electrons and is paramagnetic. The difference is therefore not the metal oxidation state, but the ligand field and resulting geometry and electron arrangement.
Review the wording, not just the score
A recording can reveal a knowledge gap, but it can also expose an answer that is chemically sound and too compressed to earn the point. In the nickel example, “tetrahedral is paramagnetic” is a conclusion; naming the two unpaired electrons supplies the supporting reason. After each attempt, mark the exact phrase that was vague, then practise a replacement sentence.
A MySummaries wording review for the nickel answer could look like this:
Both complexes have nickel in the +2 oxidation state, so both are d8. Cyanide gives the square-planar complex and the electrons pair there. Chloride gives a tetrahedral complex, so it is paramagnetic. The difference comes from ligand-field strength and geometry.
so it is paramagnetic
You gave the correct property but omitted the electron-level reason for it.
Say: Say that tetrahedral d8 [NiCl4]2− has two unpaired electrons, which makes it paramagnetic.A useful review loop is: listen once for the structure of the answer; listen again for unsupported claims; then repeat only the weak part with the missing chemical link added. Keep a short record of recurring omissions, such as forgetting charge balance, not stating an electron count, or naming a property without explaining it. Turn each omission into a new prompt for your next practice session.
The same method applies when you face follow-up questions. If asked to compare, state what is held constant and what changes. If asked to predict, give the prediction before the explanation. If asked to justify, connect the observation to a named chemical model and say where that model is an approximation. These habits make answers easier to follow without requiring a memorised speech for every topic.
How MySummaries helps
Build a revision board from your own inorganic chemistry notes, then use it to create viva stations from the topics you need to explain. Recorded answers can be reviewed for missing reasoning, while flashcards and examiner-voice audio help you revisit the facts behind weak answers. Start at portal.mysummaries.app.