PrepTest 136
Passage
Passage walkthrough
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)
- Author's view:
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)
- Theoretical physicists' view:
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)
- Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
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
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
Athe results of experiments Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
(A) Does this say that "the relevant evidence" refers to the results of nuclear bombardment experiments from the 1930s?
Yes! As we reviewed, the evidence Meitner relied on to "discover" nuclear fission refers to the results of nuclear bombardment experiments. We may need to check the passage to confirm that these dates are accurate, but a quick scan for the dates 1934 and 1939 will confirm that they are. The experiments started in 1934 with a group of Italian scientists and culminated with Meitner's 1939 epiphany (P1, S3). We can justifiably select (A) and advance straight to the next question.
-
Bthe results of related Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
(B) Does this say that "the relevant evidence" refers to the results of nuclear bombardment experiments from the 1930s?
Not quite. As we anticipated, many other physicists compiled evidence that they were splitting atoms (P3, S2). Plus, while the passage does say that Meitner undertook related research in 1938 after fleeing Nazi Germany (P3, S4), it was Hahn's experiments that led to her breakthrough (P3, S6; P4, S1).
-
Cthe clear chemical evidence Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Does this say that "the relevant evidence" refers to the results of nuclear bombardment experiments from the 1930s?
Not quite. This answer choice has the same problem as (B). While Hahn's experiment led to Meitner's breakthrough and provided clear chemical evidence that barium was produced by nuclear bombardment of uranium (P3, S6; P4, S1), our review showed that many other physicists compiled evidence that they were splitting atoms (P3, S2).
Additionally, Hahn's experiment was shared with Meitner in late 1938, and she made her insight in 1939 — Hahn's evidence can hardly be considered "present for some time." The correct answer has to be broader than this.
-
Dthe fact that the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
(D) Does this say that "the relevant evidence" refers to the results of nuclear bombardment experiments from the 1930s?
No, and once again, this answer choice is too narrowly focused. Hahn's experiment did lead to Meitner's breakthrough, and it did lead to him noting that barium and technetium were the results of his experiment, with protons/neutrons adding up to the total in uranium (P3, S6; P4, S1). However, our review of the passage suggested that "the relevant evidence" encompassed more than this one experiment. There were other physicists who compiled evidence that they were splitting atoms (P3, S2). Moreover, this answer messes the timeline up. Hahn's experiment was shared with Meitner in late 1938, and she made her insight in 1939 - that evidence can hardly be considered "present for some time." It has to be broader than this.
-
Ethe fact that radioactive Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
(E) Does this say that "the relevant evidence" refers to the results of nuclear bombardment experiments from the 1930s?
No. And besides, this answer choice doesn't describe evidence but rather a lack of evidence. Indeed, Hahn's identification of the products led to the insight (P3, S6; P4, S1)!
What this tests
Discussion
-
Please help 1 reply
Started by yckim2180
-
H seems to be ok for me 1 reply
Started by medasmx@protonmail.com
-
How to solve 2 replies
Started by nicolebet