Reading comp PrepTest 136 · Section 1 · Question 23

Passage

Questions 23-27  .        Advances in scientific understanding often do not  . build directly or smoothly in response to the Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Generalization (scientific advancements made long after evidence acquired) and example introduced (Meitner, nuclear fission)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Science advances aren't direct or smooth, and sometimes breakthroughs are based on long-available evidence (first sentence)
    • Example of the author's view:
      • Discovery of nuclear fission occurred long after Meitner, Fermi and others had compiled evidence that they were splitting nuclei (second and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "often do not" (first sentence); "it may seem strange" (first sentence); "crucial theoretical connection" (last sentence); "compiled increasing evidence" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Theoretical physicists' view and why Meitner didn't make discovery earlier (didn't believe nuclear fission was possible)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Theoretical physicists' view:
      • Calculations show that atoms could be split (first sentence)
    • Experimental physicists' view:
      • Not receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, and neutron bombardment of uranium was not aimed at achieving that result (second sentence)
    • Comparison, according to experimental physicists:
      • A neutron breaking apart a uranium nucleus would be like a pebble causing a house to collapse (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "were not even receptive" (second sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Surprising results of Meitner et al.'s 30s experiments (couldn't identify products, then Hahn discovered barium and technetium)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
      • Using minute quantities due to the dangers of radioactivity partly caused the results of neutron bombardment to go unidentified (third sentence)
      • The expectation that the results would be similar to uranium was the more significant cause of why the results of neutron bombardment went unidentified (third sentence)
    • Otto Hahn's view:
      • The results of the neutron bombardment produced barium and technetium, which was puzzling and went "against all previous experiences of nuclear physics" (fifth and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "partly" (third sentence); "more significantly" (third sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Meitner's delayed discovery of nuclear fission (findings corroborated, but they had the evidence for some time)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's attitude: "finally recognized the significance" (first sentence); "became clear" (last sentence); "lacking mainly" (last sentence)

Main Point: Scientific breakthroughs sometimes come from evidence that was available for a while, as exemplified by Meitner's discovery of nuclear fission.

Meta-Structure?

Generalization/Example: This passage utilizes the Generalization/Example Meta-Structure.* In these passages, the generalization generally appears as one or two sentences, usually at the beginning or the end of the passage. Here, the first sentence sets up the generalization, the second sets up the example, and then the last clause of the last sentence brings them back together.

When a passage uses a Generalization/Example Meta-Structure, the main point is typically the generalization or a variation of "[The specific example] illustrates [generalization]." So, we made the main point: "Scientific breakthroughs sometimes come from evidence that was available for a while, as exemplified by Meitner's discovery of nuclear fission."

*One could also argue that this is a Phenomenon/Explanation passage (phenomenon: puzzling results of uranium bombardment experiments; explanation: splitting uranium atoms) or Old Approach/New Approach passage (old approach: can't split atoms; new approach: you can split them!), but the word "case in point" following the first sentence strongly suggests that this passage is best thought of as a Generalization/Example passage.

Last Thoughts?

There are a lot of details in the passage, and a lot of them involve science (Do you even remember what the second element with barium was? Did you remember barium?!). As such, we're going to have to rely on our notes to find these details when they're asked about. Don't try to learn nuclear physics while taking the LSAT! It's hard.

Question prompt

The author's primary aim Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and any major Meta-Structures, then find an answer that best captures the latter with the details from the former

Answer Anticipation

A question that asks for a passage’s “primary aim” asks us to select the answer choice that describes why the author wrote the passage. The correct answer will describe an action: what the author hoped to do in the passage and how the author accomplished that.Now, in a broad sense, every author hopes to convince us that the main point is true. However, different authors employ different means to convince us of that main point. That’s why the passage’s Meta-Structure can be revealing: it helps us predetermine how this specific author was attempting to convey the main point.In this case, the central Meta-Structure was Generalization/Example. When that’s the case, we should look for an answer reflecting the generalization and the example. The generalization, found in the first sentence, says that scientific advances are haphazard and sometimes based on evidence that has been available for a while. The example was that of nuclear fission and Meitner’s research. So, let's look for an answer choice that says the passage's primary aim is to illustrate the haphazard way scientific breakthroughs are made with a historical example.

Answer choices

  1. A
    criticize a traditional view Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say the passage's primary aim is to illustrate the haphazard way scientific breakthroughs are made with a historical example?

    Nope, so we can eliminate (A) without thinking about it too deeply. Besides, the passage doesn't present any traditional views that the author argues against.

  2. B
    illustrate the often erratic Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this say the passage's primary aim is to illustrate the haphazard way scientific breakthroughs are made with a historical example?

    Yes! “Illustrates” is great here since the passage uses an extended example to prove a point, and an example is an illustration. And what the Meitner/nuclear fission example illustrates is the view that scientific progress “do[es] not build directly or smoothly” from the amassed data — another way of saying it’s erratic. This answer is, therefore, correct. We'd be justified in selecting it and advancing straight to the next question.

  3. C
    judge the relative importance Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the passage's primary aim is to illustrate the haphazard way scientific breakthroughs are made with a historical example?

    Nope, so we can cross off (C) without giving further thought. Besides,

    while the passage seems to suggest that both evidence and theory are pretty important, it doesn’t rank that importance. We would have noted such a comparison!

  4. D
    take issue with the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the passage's primary aim is to illustrate the haphazard way scientific breakthroughs are made with a historical example?

    No, so let's eliminate (D). Plus, like (A), there’s no opposing viewpoint that the author argues against. So, this answer is incorrect in saying that the main point is the author "tak[ing] issue" with an idea.

  5. E
    display the way in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the passage's primary aim is to illustrate the haphazard way scientific breakthroughs are made with a historical example?

    No. Besides ... intellectual arrogance? That’s a strongly negative idea that we would have noted had the author’s attitude been that extreme.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 3%
  2. B Credited 78%
  3. C 7%
  4. D 4%
  5. E 8%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

  • Explanation 1 reply

    Started by kbernard

View all discussions Start a discussion