Reading comp PrepTest 136 · Section 1 · Question 26

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

Given the information in 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 relevant parts of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate what might happen in the scenario described

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to make an inference, from a few details in the passage, about hypotheticals described by the answer choices, we can start by quickly finding and reviewing those details. Once we review the relevant part of the passage, we can anticipate what to look for in the hypothetical situation described by the answer choices.In this case, the question asks us what hypothetical situation would have decreased the time it took physicists to realize that atoms were being split. So, what would have allowed physicists to make this realization sooner? To identify that, we should think about the reasons why it took the physicists so long to make their discovery.Our notes identify two reasons why this discovery was delayed. Our note for the second paragraph says that "Meitner didn't make discovery earlier" because she "didn't believe nuclear fission was possible." If we had to review the passage to confirm that this was correct, we'd see that it says that "researchers were not even receptive to the possibility" that splitting atoms is possible (P2, S2).Our note for the third paragraph also says that researchers "couldn't identify products" of the uranium bombardment experiments. Since Hahn's identification of the products led to Meitner's epiphany, this delayed the discovery of atom splitting. Reviewing the third paragraph, we'll see there were two reasons why they could identify the products. They were dealing with minute quantities of the resulting materials due to the radioactive nature of the materials, and, most importantly, they expected that the resulting elements would be similar to uranium in composition (P3, S3).So, to hasten the discovery that atoms were being split, we should remove or mitigate the effects of one of these hurdles. Therefore, we should look for an answer choice that says researchers were more receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, researchers worked with larger quantities of uranium, or (most likely) that researchers did not expect the results would resemble uranium.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The physicists conducting the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice say that researchers were more receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, researchers worked with larger quantities of uranium, or that researchers did not expect the results would resemble uranium?

    Nope. So, we can cross (A) off. Besides, what was relevant to the conclusion about atoms being split was the results of the experiments, not the techniques being used for them. It's probable that multiple techniques would lead to the same outcomes.

  2. B
    The physicists conducting the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this answer choice say that researchers were more receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, researchers worked with larger quantities of uranium, or that researchers did not expect the results would resemble uranium?

    Yes! The passage notes that the "most significant" reason the products of neutron-bombardment went identified so long, preventing the scientists from concluding that atoms were being split, was that they expected the resulting elements to be similar to uranium in composition (P3, S3). Had they not had that expectation, they might have identified the barium that Hahn identified sooner. This answer, in removing the most significant hurdle to the discovery, would have made that discovery more likely to be reached sooner, so it's the correct answer. And since it matches our anticipation, we can justifiably select it and advance to the following question.

  3. C
    The physicists conducting the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice say that researchers were more receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, researchers worked with larger quantities of uranium, or that researchers did not expect the results would resemble uranium?

    No, so we can quickly eliminate (C). And, if anything, being unaware of the calculations that show atoms can split would make one less likely to hypothesize that atoms were being split in their experiments! This answer is the opposite of what we're looking for.

  4. D
    More physicists concentrated on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice say that researchers were more receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, researchers worked with larger quantities of uranium, or that researchers did not expect the results would resemble uranium?

    Nope, so we can cross off (D). Besides, the passage provides no indication that more experimental results would have led to the breakthrough being made sooner. From the sound of it, there was already plenty of data out there leading to this conclusion, so more of the same likely wouldn't have had much of an effect. If everyone conducting these experiments weren't open to the possibility that atoms could be split, more researchers wouldn't hasten the discovery.

  5. E
    Physicists conducted experiments in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice say that researchers were more receptive to the possibility that atoms could be split, researchers worked with larger quantities of uranium, or that researchers did not expect the results would resemble uranium?

    Nope, so we can eliminate (E). And if the results were similar to those with uranium — the resulting materials being different in composition from the base element used in the experiment — then there'd be no reason to believe that this would result in the discovery being made sooner.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 8%
  2. B Credited 63%
  3. C 11%
  4. D 14%
  5. E 5%

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

View all discussions Start a discussion