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 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 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 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

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

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