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

According to the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation

We generally love questions that ask about numbers or years, as it’s easy to find information by skimming the passage and looking for numbers. Our eyes can naturally pick out numbers in a bunch of text. However, upon scanning through this passage, we can see that the entire passage is about scientists in the 1930s. As such, we don’t have much guidance regarding where to find the correct answer.So, we’ll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn’t reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we shouldn’t check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we’ll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, we’ll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If we can find that confirmation, we’ll select that answer choice and move on.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It neglected earlier theoretical Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Nope. Our notes reference theoretical physicists' view, but our notes don't suggest that the experimental physicists neglected that view. Therefore, we can eliminate — or at least table — (A) without reviewing the passage.

    If we had to review the passage to see if (A) is supported, we'd see that the passage notes that earlier theoretical physicists had calculated that splitting an atom was possible (P2, S1). And while it took a while for the physicists in the 1930s to determine that their neutron-bombardment experiments were splitting atoms, there’s no indication this was because they disregarded those earlier theoretical calculations and thought it was impossible to split an atom. Rather, they just thought it was unbelievably unlikely to do so by shooting a neutron at one (P2, S2-S3).

  2. B
    It reevaluated calculations indicating Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    No. Our notes reference theoretical physicists' view but don't suggest that the experimental physicists reevaluated these theoretical physicists' calculations. Therefore, we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) without reviewing the passage.

    If we had to review the passage to see whether (B) is supported, we wouldn't find any sign that the scientists in the 1930s reevaluated earlier calculations made by theoretical physicists. In fact, Meitner seems to have accepted that atoms could be split without rerunning any calculations to that effect!

  3. C
    It never identified the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Negative. Our note for the third paragraph says that "Hahn discovered barium and technetium," which were the two byproducts of the nuclear bombardment of uranium. So, we can eliminate (C) without checking the passage.

  4. D
    It showed that uranium Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Again, no. Our notes don't say whether uranium was easier to split than any other substance. Moreover, this answer choice uses bold, superlative language ("the easiest"), which is hard to support and unlikely to appear in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. Therefore, we can eliminate — or at least table — (D) without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find any support for this answer choice if we re-read the entire passage. The passage simply does not bring up splitting the atoms of other substances.

  5. E
    It recognized the dangers Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    No, but we might recall from our anticipation from the previous question that researchers didn't identify the byproducts of their experiments partly because they were dealing with minute quantities of the resulting materials due to the radioactive nature of the materials. If that rings a bell, it's worth checking (E) against the passage to confirm that it's correct.

    Reviewing the third paragraph, we'll see that one of the hurdles to Meitner’s breakthrough was the danger of working with highly radioactive materials (P3, S3). If the scientists didn’t recognize the dangers of working with such materials, then they probably wouldn't have worked with such minute quantities of uranium. So, this is the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion