PrepTest 113

[lcid:3548] Prep Test 113 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 8-13  .        Spurred by the discovery that a substance  . containing uranium emitted radiation, Marie Curie  . began Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Background on Curie's research on radioactivity (discovered polonium and radium in pitchblende, concluded emission rate is constant, couldn't locate mechanism)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Curies's findings:
      • Found two new elements in pitchblende: polonium and radium (fourth sentence)
      • Concluded that the radiation emission rate is constant (sixth sentence)
      • Curie couldn't explain the "mechanism" for radiation (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Criticism of Curie (for not discovering the mechanism or realizing that emission rates decrease slowly) and author's rebuttal (it would have been impossible given the evidence)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Critics' view
      • We now know emission rates aren't constant (they decrease slowly over time) and that radiation occurs when isotopes decay, and Curie should have figured this out herself (first and second sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • It would have been impossible for Curie to make this conclusion with the evidence available to her, as the elements she would have needed aren't readily available in nature (second through last sentences)
    • Definition of "isotope": atom of the same element but different atomic structure (first sentence)
    • Author's opinion: "now known" (first sentence), "would have been impossible" (second sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's rebuttal (debate on the nature of the atom in Curie's era)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The nature of the atom was still being debated in Curie's era (first sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Physicists believed that atoms were indivisible, while chemists used the atom as a way to conceptualize some reactions but weren't concerned about whether atoms existed (second and last sentences)
    • Author's opinion: "we must recall" (first sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's rebuttal (Curie thought atoms were indivisible, couldn't conceive of atoms losing mass)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Curie couldn't have been expected to realize that atoms lose mass because she was committed to the idea of an indivisible atom (first and second sentences)
      • Further, her research helped pave the way for later breakthroughs in our understanding of atoms (last sentence)
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Curie thought atoms were indivisible, so even if she thought that substances might lose mass by shedding atoms, this is a very different explanation of substances decaying when the atoms lose mass (first and second sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "very different" (first sentence) "could not be expected to have conceived" (second sentence), "understandable" (last sentence), "important to recognize" (last sentence), "paved the way for later breakthroughs" (last sentence)

Main Point: Curie's erroneous conclusions when investigating radiation are understandable and helped pave the way for later breakthroughs.

Meta-Structure?

Rebutting Critics: We think the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure best fits this passage's structure.* In a Rebutting Critics passage, the author presents criticisms of the subject matter before mounting a defense against those critiques. This pattern matches this passage's argument structure perfectly.

In the first paragraph, the passage introduces us to Madame Curie's investigation of radiation. After experimenting with various radioactive materials, she concluded that "the emission rate for a given element was constant" (P1, S6), but she could not "postulate a mechanism by which to explain radiation" (P1, S7). The second paragraph introduces a criticism of Curie's work. Modern science has since shown that some of Curie's ideas are wrong, and some critics have "faulted" her for not knowing better (P2, S2). Yet, our author tells us that Curie is not to be blamed for these inaccuracies. In fact, it would have been "impossible" for her to have discovered the truth about radioactivity.

In the following paragraphs, the author lays out several reasons why Curie's erroneous conclusions were understandable. Given the era in which she made her discoveries, she was limited in the materials and information available at the time. Complete explanations for the phenomenon she observed would only become possible with the help of more modern discoveries about radiation and the atom. The passage concludes by emphasizing that, although Curie was technically wrong, it was by no fault of her own, and she still succeeded in making crucial contributions to the world's understanding of radiation.

In a passage that utilizes a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure, the main point will be the author's central defense. We should consider whether the author provides a conclusion summarizing their defense. If no conclusion is offered, we can summarize the defense for ourselves. In this case, the author provides a succinct summary of the argument in the last paragraph. There, we read, "not only is Curie's inability to identify the mechanism by which radiation occurs understandable, it is also important to recognize that it was Curie's investigation of radiation that paved the way for the later breakthroughs" (P4, S3). Since this sentence does such a good job of representing the main point, we should anticipate something that looks very similar.

*Since the author disagrees with the critics' viewpoint, you might see this as a Criticizing a Viewpoint or Correcting the Record passage. There is considerable overlap between these types of Meta-Structures, and investigating this passage with either structure would still help you understand the argument. You could even consider this an Innovative [Subject] passage, although you should still try to frame the main point as a response to criticisms.

Last Thoughts?

This passage isn’t about understanding the science (few science passages are). It’s about understanding the author’s argument. And understanding the author’s argument doesn’t depend on understanding radioactivity or emission rates or isotopic decay or anything like that. It’s about seeing how the author responds to Curie’s critics!

Question prompt

The passage suggests that 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

Consult your notes or passage to recall the author's attitude about the topic in question, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the author's opinion on that topic.

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to find the answer choice that the author would most likely agree with about the contemporary critics of Curie's studies of radioactivity. We can review the main point, our notes, and what we highlighted/underlined to determine what the author thinks about the contemporary critics' argument.Recalling the main point, we know the author defends Curie from these critics' charges. So, right away, we know the author does not agree with this critics. Consulting our notes, we'll notice the author first mentions the critics in the second paragraph. Our note for the second paragraph indicates that author argues Curie making accurate conclusions about radioactivity "would have been impossible, given the evidence." Our note for the third paragraph shows that the author also defends Curie on the grounds that there was still an active "debate on the nature of the atom in Curie's era." Finally, our note for the final paragraph suggests that the author defends Curie because she "thought atoms were indivisible, [so she] couldn't conceive of atoms losing mass."So, let's look for an answer choice that's consistent with these ideas.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The critics fail to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this reflected in our notes on the author's rebuttal?

    Not quite. Sure, the author thinks that the critics are ignoring some obstacles that Curie faced, but were those obstacles the result of "dealing with the scientific community of her time?" The specific obstacles we reviewed in our notes involved the evidence available to Curie, the debate on the atom, and her conception of the atom. None of these notes mention that Curie had a difficult time dealing with "the scientific community," so we can eliminate (A) without checking the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find any support for (A) if we re-read the entire passage. The passage never describes Curie's relationship with the scientific community, so (A) is entirely unsupported.

  2. B
    The critics do not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this reflected in our notes on the author's rebuttal? 

    Nope. Our notes didn't mention anything about quantum mechanics' dependence on Curie's ideas, so we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find any support for (B) if we re-read the entire passage. Although the author claims that Curie's research paved the way for future breakthroughs in radioactivity, that's not part of the author's defense against the critics' claims. Moreover, we don't know that quantum mechanics depended on Curie's research or her conjecture that radiating substances can lose atoms. The author only claims that some of Curie's erroneous conclusions were corrected by the advances in quantum mechanisms. We can eliminate (B).

  3. C
    The critics are unaware Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this reflected in our notes on the author's rebuttal? 

    Not quite. Our notes do say that the author defends Curie on the grounds that there was a "debate" on the nature of the atom during Curie's era. And, as you may recall from the third paragraph, this debate was between physicists and chemists. But does that mean the critics were unaware of this debate? That's a bit strong. They could be aware of this debate but still fail to appreciate how that limited Curie's ability to reach sound conclusions. For that reason, it's best to table (C) and check the remaining answer choices to see if any better reflect our notes on the author's views.

    Besides, if we re-read the entire third paragraph, we'd see that (C) is probably false. The author never claims that critics were unaware of this debate. In fact, the author says, "we must recall" this debate (P3, S1), which suggests that the critics have prior knowledge of the debate. Moreover, the author's point in this paragraph wasn't simply that there was a debate between these two sides. The author's point is that this debate evidences how the atom was not well understood during Curie's era, which hamstrung her ability to make accurate conclusions about radioactivity.

  4. D
    The critics fail to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Is this reflected in our notes on the author's rebuttal? 

    Yes! This answer choice perfectly reflects the author's defense of Curie's career. The author claims that during Curie's era, her access to evidence was limited, and there was still an active debate on the nature of the atom. Both of these defenses focus on the "historical context" in which Curie worked. So, the author would certainly agree with the claim that these critics fail to appreciate the importance of the historical context in which Curie made her conclusions on radioactivity. We can pick (D) and move on.

  5. E
    The critics do not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this reflected in our notes on the author's rebuttal?

    Nope. Our notes mention Curie's "intricate" reasoning as a way the author defended Curie from the critics. So, we can eliminate — or at least table — (E) without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find any support for (E) if we re-read the entire passage. The author never says that the critics can't keep up with Curie's argument. The author agrees with the critics that Curie was wrong about some things but also thinks that the critics should consider the circumstances when evaluating her career. (E) is out.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion