PrepTest 136

[lcid:3640] Prep Test 136 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

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 most likely reason Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the view of the theoretical physicists, then see how Meitner's insight plays into their argument

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to infer why the theoretical physicists from the second paragraph would be pleased about Meitner's discovery of nuclear fission. Often, one's views are described at length throughout the passage, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. In this case, however, our notes remind us that the theoretical physicists' views were only mentioned in the second paragraph. Therefore, we can review that part of the passage, if necessary, to anticipate what the correct answer will likely say.So, let's start with what the theoretical physicists from the second paragraph believed. Checking that section, we can see that they calculated that it should be possible to split atoms (P2, S1). And recall, Meitner's insight about nuclear bombardment showed that researchers in those experiments "had been splitting uranium atoms" (P4, S1). So, her insight into these experiments provided experimental evidence for their calculations/theory. They'd probably feel vindicated by that. Let's find an answer that says that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    was dependent upon the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say the theoretical physicists would feel vindicated that Meitner's insight provided experimental evidence for their calculations/theory?

    No. There's no indication that Meitner was aware of the work of the theoretical physicists, so we can quickly eliminate (A). Besides, the only math the passage relates to her work is Hahn adding up some protons and neutrons (P3, S6).

  2. B
    paved the way for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the theoretical physicists would feel vindicated that Meitner's insight provided experimental evidence for their calculations/theory?

    Nope. We can eliminate (B). The theoretical physicists' calculations were made before Meitner's insights, and there's no indication they cared about being accepted abroad.

  3. C
    proved that the nuclei Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the theoretical physicists would feel vindicated that Meitner's insight provided experimental evidence for their calculations/theory?

    No, so we can cross off (C). While these physicists theorized that atoms could be split, there's no indication that they believed them to be "unstable." You can break a rock apart, but rocks are pretty stable! On top of that, Meitner's conclusion wasn't that atoms/nuclei are unstable, but rather that they could be broken down under certain circumstances that weren't believed to be able to do so.

  4. D
    confirmed their earlier work Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this say the theoretical physicists would feel vindicated that Meitner's insight provided experimental evidence for their calculations/theory?

    Yes! The theoretical physicists from the second paragraph calculated that atoms could be split, and Meitner's insight was that the atoms in the nuclear-bombardment experiments were being split. So, her insight confirmed their "[e]arlier" work, making this the correct answer. We can justifiably select this and move on to the next question.

  5. E
    came after years of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the theoretical physicists would feel vindicated that Meitner's insight provided experimental evidence for their calculations/theory?

    No, so we can toss (E) away. Besides, it's unclear why anyone would be "pleased" that another person's insight came only after years of analyzing data.

What this tests

Discussion