Michael S. answered 15d
B.S. in Chemistry, Indiana University; Organic Chem Teaching Intern
[F−] = 0.01598 ± 0.00012 M
Step 1 — the value
mol NaF = 0.0805 g ÷ 41.989 g/mol = 1.9172 × 10−3 mol
NaF dissociates 1:1, so mol F− = mol NaF.
[F−] = 1.9172 × 10−3 mol ÷ 0.12000 L = 0.015976 M
Step 2 — which rule applies
Every operation here is a multiplication or a division. For those, you propagate relative uncertainties in quadrature — not absolute ones. (Absolute uncertainties add in quadrature only for addition and subtraction. Mixing the two rules up is the most common error in this whole topic.)
Step 3 — relative uncertainties
mass: 0.0006 / 0.0805 = 0.00745 (0.745%)
molar mass: 0.001 / 41.989 = 0.0000238 (0.00238%)
volume: 0.06 / 120.00 = 0.000500 (0.0500%)
Step 4 — combine
erel = √(0.007452 + 0.00002382 + 0.0005002)
erel = √(5.555 × 10−5 + 5.7 × 10−10 + 2.50 × 10−7) = √(5.580 × 10−5) = 0.00747 (0.747%)
Step 5 — back to absolute
eabs = 0.015976 M × 0.00747 = 1.19 × 10−4 M
[F−] = 0.01598 ± 0.00012 M (about 0.0160 ± 0.0001 M)
The thing actually worth taking away from this problem
Look at what each term contributed. The mass uncertainty is 0.745%; everything else is at most 0.05%. Squaring makes that gap enormous — the molar mass term is 5.7 × 10−10 against the mass term's 5.6 × 10−5, five orders of magnitude smaller. Drop the molar mass and volume terms entirely and you still get 0.745% instead of 0.747%.
That is how quadrature behaves in general: the largest single term dominates, and anything under about a third of it is invisible. Practically, it means a more precise balance is the only thing that would meaningfully improve this measurement. Buying a better volumetric flask would do essentially nothing. Being able to see that at a glance is the real skill this question is training.
One formatting note: report the uncertainty to one significant figure (0.0001) or at most two (0.00012), and round the value to match that decimal place. Writing 0.0159764 ± 0.00012 claims precision the last digits do not have.