What are the steps in solving an SN1 reaction?

SN1 reactions are stepwise mechanisms that are well-represented by this rate law, $"Rate" = k["LG"^-]$ This is because their rate determining step is the first step, and in the first...

No, an $"S"_"N"1$ reaction involves two steps. In a typical nucleophilic substitution reaction, a nucleophile Nu⁻ attacks a substrate R-LG. Nu⁻ + R-LG → Nu-R + LG⁻ The leaving group...

$S_(N)1$ reactions are important because, as far as we know, they describe a mechanism of organic reactivity, of chemical reactivity. And they describe a BOND-BREAKING PROCESS, as compared to $S_(N)2$...

In a $S_n1$ reaction the reaction rate does only depend on the concentration of the substrate. Mening that you can add all the nucleophile you wan't but the reaction wont...

1-more stearic hindrance, more chance to give SN1 Rn. vice versa 2-more hyperconjugation capability of a substrate, more stable will be the carbocation ultimately more chance to give SN1 Rn....

Not only the solvent The type of nucleophilic substitution is decided by nucleophilicity and basicity of the nucleophyle, steric hindrance around the putative carbon, and type of solvent, protic solvents...

The clearest difference is in their names! SN1 reactions are unimolecular, stepwise mechanisms, where, $"R" = k["LG"^(-)]$ SN2 reactions are bimolecular, concerted mechanisms, where, $"R" = k["LG"^-]["Nu"]$ These reactions are...

Now of course $S_N1$ and $S_N2$ reactions are DISSOCIATIVE (i.e. bond-breaking), and ASSOCIATIVE (bond-making) respectively to a first approximation. Associative mechanisms are largely restricted to methyl, primary, and more rarely,...

The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW. And for this we apply $"a posteriori"$ reasoning, argument AFTER the fact, rather than $"a priori"$ reasoning, argument BEFORE the fact. Mix...

For nucleophilic substitutions, SN1 and SN2 are equally important, however, for the $beta$-elimination, E2 is much more common and useful than E1.