Read the passage carefully and answer the Questions.

According to Valence Bond theory, the metal atom or ion under the influence of ligands can use its (n-1)d, ns, np or ns, np, nd orbitals for hybridisation to yield a set of equivalent orbitals of definite geometry such as octahedral, tetrahedral, square planar and so on. These hybridised orbitals are allowed to overlap with ligand orbitals that can donate electron pairs for bonding. While the VB theory, to a larger extent, explains the formation, structures and magnetic behaviour of coordination compounds, it suffers from the many shortcomings. The crystal field theory (CFT) is an electrostatic model which considers the metal-ligand bond to be ionic arising purely from electrostatic interactions between the metal ion and the ligand. The five d orbitals in an isolated gaseous metal atom/ion have same energy, i.e., they are degenerate. This degeneracy is maintained if a spherically symmetrical field of negative charges surrounds the metal atom/ion. However, when this negative field is due to ligands in a complex, it becomes asymmetrical and the degeneracy of the d orbitals is lifted. It results in splitting of the d orbitals. The pattern of splitting depends upon the nature of the crystal field.

Which of the following is not true about the limitations of VBT

It does not explain hybridisation to yield a set of equivalent orbitals

The correct answer is Option (2) → It does not explain hybridisation to yield a set of equivalent orbitals **

Let’s analyze the limitations of Valence Bond Theory (VBT):

1. It does not give quantitative interpretation of magnetic data →  True (VBT is qualitative)
2. It does not explain hybridisation to yield a set of equivalent orbitals →  False
• VBT does explain hybridization (like sp³, dsp², d²sp³) to yield equivalent orbitals.
3. It does not explain the colour exhibited by coordination compounds →  True (needs Crystal Field Theory)
4. It does not give a quantitative interpretation of thermodynamic or kinetic stabilities →  True