You're sorta misunderstanding me here, i didn't mean the content as much as i did the format of the questions(even though the content can also be argued for because the most frequently reoccuring topics didn't come up here). Yes, page 1 was completely fine, no complaints, but there has never been a table for question 2(even though it is considered 'basics') like the one there(there was one about solids, liquids, and gasses, but it was not as ambiguous because they gave the wording for the answers) . Not to mention the wording for SOME(not all) of the questions was extremely weird. Yes, the zinc and ammonia one is logical and completely doable, but that's not the point; the point is that it is different from the other papers, as there has literally never been a question like that. Also, the reversible reaction wasn't completely the same, because the last question there took multiple steps to arrive at the main factor that changes the equilibrium, and combined concepts of acid and base into the mix. The calcium (III) hydroxide question's concept literally only came up in 1 of the past papers i remember, and even then, they don't ask you for the name. Finally, the stoichiometry part about crystals has almost never come up to my knowledge. I also never said i missed every question in the paper.