When ethyl acetate was hydrolyzed in the presence of `0.1 M HCl`, the constant was found to be `5.40 xx 10^(-5) s^(-1)`. But when `0.1 M H_(2)SO_(4)` was used for hydrolyiss, the rate constant found to be `6.20 xx 10^(-5) s^(-1)`. form these we can say that

When ethyl acetate was hydrolysed in presence of 0.1 M HCI, the rate constant was found to be 5.4 xx 10^(-5) s^(-1) . But in presence of 0.1 M H_2SO_4 the rate constant was found to be 6.25 xx 10^(-5)s^(-1) .Thus it may be concluded that:

When ethyl acetate was was hydrolysedin presemce of 0.1 M HCl, the rate constant was found to be 5.4xx10^(-5)s^(-1) . But in presence of 0.1 M H_(2)SO_(4) the rate constant was found to be 6.25xx10^(-5)s^(-1) . Thus it may be concluded that:

When ethyl acetate was was hydrolysedin presemce of 0.1 M HCl, the rate constant was found to be 5.4xx10^(-5)s^(-1) . But in presence of 0.1 M H_(2)SO_(4) the rate constant was found to be 6.25xx10^(-5)s^(-1) . Thus it may be concluded that:

When ethyl acetate was was hydrolysedin presemce of 0.1 M HCl, the rate constant was found to be 5.4xx10^(-5)s^(-1) . But in presence of 0.1 M H_(2)SO_(4) the rate constant was found to be 6.25xx10^(-5)s^(-1) . Thus it may be concluded that: a) H_(2)SO_(4) furnishes more H^(+) than HCl b) H_(2)SO_(4) furnishes less H^(+) than HCl c) both have the same strength d) will depend on concentration of ethyl acetate

The rate constant for the hydrolyiss of ethyl acetate in the presence of 0.1 N acid (A) was found to be 5.4 xx 10^(5) s^(-1) and for the hydrolyiss of ethyl acetate in the presence of 0.1 N acid (B) , it was 6.2 xx 10^(-5) s^(-1) . form these observations, one may conclude that