PrepTest 143
[lcid:3669] Prep Test 143 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2
Reading comp
Passage
Questions 21-27 . To glass researchers it seems somewhat strange . that many people throughout the world share the
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science
Paragraph 1
Zanotto has shown that the persistent belief that glass flows like water and this explains the thicker bottoms of medieval glass is wrong, as it would take longer than the universe has existed for that to happen, and it's probably the result of manufacturing methods.
Key Lines:
Lines 1-5 - A common belief and the fact that scientists think it's weird are introduced
Lines 8-10 - A partial reason for it is stated
Lines 20-21 - A phenomenon is noted, and the Author says that she believes an explanation related to the common belief has been debunked
Lines 44-46 - An alternative explanation is presented
Meta-Structure:
Common Belief/New Belief - This passage introduces a persistent belief shared by many (Line 3) before showing it's wrong. This metastructure is very common on the LSAT, and especially so in science passages.
Phenomenon/Explanation - Here, the Author presents a phenomenon—medieval glass is thicker at the bottom (Lines 20-23). After ruling out one explanation (Lines 20-23), she presents another (Lines 44-46).
Last Thoughts:
Remember - You don't need to know science! We don't care if you know what an amorphous atomic structure is, or if you know the atomic weight of geranium is (it doesn't have one, it's a flower! It's germanium, but it still doesn't matter). What we do want is you to tag these phrases so you can find them in case it asks about them in context.
Second, the main point. This passage has a lot going on, and we want to make sure that our anticipation of the main point is comprehensive. As such, we need to make sure that it includes the phenomenon being explained, the incorrect explanation (in some way), and the explanation put forward by the Author, along with how certain she is about each element (mainly the debunking and the new explanation).
Finally, this passage brings up a really important thing to note—and it's especially common in science passages. That's the certainty of the verb that the Author uses to describe proof (in this case, studies). There's a world of difference between a study that argues a common belief is wrong, one that provides evidence it's wrong, and one that proves it's wrong. If the Author says "argues," then we don't know her opinion on it. If she says "provides evidence," then she thinks there's a good case, but she's not sold. And if she says the study "proves" the belief is wrong, then the Author is on board. "Debunks" here is in the third camp—you can't use that verb if you don't think that the study has disproved the belief with certainty. Start to analyze these words when the Author introduces evidence!
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A myth is presented, what partly led to it is proposed, and background info on glass
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Myth (weird to glass experts) - Glass flows down like a liquid
- Origin - Unknown, but probably in part because of mistake on atomic structure
- Science/Structure - Liquid and glass similar, but cooling it makes it an amorphous solid
- Paragraph note
- A related phenomenon is introduced, and an explanation is debunked in a study
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Phenomenon - Medieval cathedrals have glass thicker at the bottom
- Explanation - Glass flows down
- Author - Zanotto study debunks this
- Zanotto - Gravity can cause solids to flow, but it'd take longer than the universe
- Paragraph note
- Zanotto's conclusions are explained
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- GO glass - flows best - would take trillions of years
- Impurities would lessen that, but not by that much
- Flow requires 350+C (temp)
- Author - Study shows what scientists had known
- Paragraph note
- A true explanation for the earlier phenomenon is noted
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Explanation for thicker bottoms of medieval cathedral glass - Manufacturing processes
- Early (until 19th C) - Glass blown, which thickened some edges, and those were placed down for stability
- Later - Pulled from rod, making it more uniform
- Now - Molten tin floating, making it extremely flat
Zanotto has shown that the persistent belief that glass flows like water and this explains the thicker bottoms of medieval glass is wrong, as it would take longer than the universe has existed for that to happen, and it's probably the result of manufacturing methods.
Key Lines:
Lines 1-5 - A common belief and the fact that scientists think it's weird are introduced
Lines 8-10 - A partial reason for it is stated
Lines 20-21 - A phenomenon is noted, and the Author says that she believes an explanation related to the common belief has been debunked
Lines 44-46 - An alternative explanation is presented
Meta-Structure:
Common Belief/New Belief - This passage introduces a persistent belief shared by many (Line 3) before showing it's wrong. This metastructure is very common on the LSAT, and especially so in science passages.
Phenomenon/Explanation - Here, the Author presents a phenomenon—medieval glass is thicker at the bottom (Lines 20-23). After ruling out one explanation (Lines 20-23), she presents another (Lines 44-46).
Last Thoughts:
Remember - You don't need to know science! We don't care if you know what an amorphous atomic structure is, or if you know the atomic weight of geranium is (it doesn't have one, it's a flower! It's germanium, but it still doesn't matter). What we do want is you to tag these phrases so you can find them in case it asks about them in context.
Second, the main point. This passage has a lot going on, and we want to make sure that our anticipation of the main point is comprehensive. As such, we need to make sure that it includes the phenomenon being explained, the incorrect explanation (in some way), and the explanation put forward by the Author, along with how certain she is about each element (mainly the debunking and the new explanation).
Finally, this passage brings up a really important thing to note—and it's especially common in science passages. That's the certainty of the verb that the Author uses to describe proof (in this case, studies). There's a world of difference between a study that argues a common belief is wrong, one that provides evidence it's wrong, and one that proves it's wrong. If the Author says "argues," then we don't know her opinion on it. If she says "provides evidence," then she thinks there's a good case, but she's not sold. And if she says the study "proves" the belief is wrong, then the Author is on board. "Debunks" here is in the third camp—you can't use that verb if you don't think that the study has disproved the belief with certainty. Start to analyze these words when the Author introduces evidence!
Question prompt
Which one of the
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
Answer choices
-
AZanotto's research has proven Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 44-46) This can be a very tempting answer, and it does reflect a lot of the argument in the passage. However, it's missing a very important part of any Phenomenon/Explanation passage—the Author's preferred explanation. She argues for a specific one in Paragraph 4—manufacturing methods. This answer completely ignores that explanation, so it's not the main point. -
BThe technology of window-glass Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 46-57) This answer provides the background for the Author's explanation to the phenomenon that led to a persistent (wrong) belief, but this answer never ties it to that phenomenon, and it doesn't reflect the Author's opinion. -
CAfter years of investigation Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 28-30; Lines 44-46) The point of the studies wasn't to precisely calculate the flow of glass, but to show that this means it can't account for the thicker bottoms of medieval cathedral pains. This answer is also completely silent on the Author's opinion and her alternative explanation. -
DRecent research provides evidence Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 39-43) The results of the study in the passage show that the flow of glass under gravity didn't contribute to the relative thickness of the bottom of glass panes in medieval cathedrals, as that would have taken longer than the time the universe has existed. It's not one of several factors—it's not a factor. -
EContrary to a commonly Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Main Point
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point that we just anticipated after reading the passage
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Here, the Author presents a phenomenon—medieval glass is thicker at the bottom (Lines 20-23). After ruling out one explanation (Lines 20-23), she presents another (Lines 44-46). This is all in service of showing that a persistent belief is wrong (Lines 1-4).
From all of this, we summed up the main point (which has a lot going on!) as:
Zanotto has shown that the persistent belief that glass flows like water and this explains the thicker bottoms of medieval glass is wrong, as it would take longer than the universe has existed for that to happen, and it's probably the result of manufacturing methods.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 1-4; Lines 20-23; Lines 44-46) The Author presents a phenomenon that serves as the basis for a persistent belief/explanation that scientists have believed is wrong. A recent study showed just how wrong that explanation was, and the Author substituted in her own probable (Line 45) one. This answer hits on all of those points, so it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Look at answer choice (A). It gets at so much of the passage, but it falls short in one of the most important ways—it doesn't reflect the Author's opinion. And, specifically, the passage falls into the Phenomenon/Explanation pattern, and (A) misses the Author's explanation. Main Point questions have correct answers that are comprehensive and reflect the Author's attitude—they need more than to just be true based on the passage. These aren't Must Be True questions!
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.