Pro-tip: When analyzing spectra of an unknown given a list of possible options, don’t just list out what peaks correspond to what.
Sure, go ahead and pattern match to figure out the most likely option as a first approximation. But then you need to go through and systematically justify why presence (or lack thereof) of certain peaks specifically support the compound you identified your unknown as. If every option is an alcohol, it is obvious that there will be a broad -OH peak. Don’t make it sound like that’s surprising; specifically note that that’s what is expected and that it’s not enough to support a specific identification. If all the options contain phenyl rings but all of them are nitro- or nitrile-substituted except one (like benzene), check if the relevant nitrogenous peaks are present. If they’re not, it has to be benzene, even though all the important peaks in benzene are also present in the others.
It blows my mind that people go so out of their way to only pattern match these things when there are much smarter ways to analyze it. I get spectrum analysis can be overwhelming, but if you don’t take the few minutes to logically consider these sort of things your life is much harder.