Self-study
P1
Advances in scientific understanding often do not build directly or smoothly in response to the data that are amassed, and in retrospect, after a major revision of theory, it may seem strange that a crucial hypothesis was long overlooked. ███
Intro to Topic ·
Scientific progress is not linear; crucial idea are sometimes overlooked
Example ·
Splitting the nucleus of an atom
Between 1934 to 1939, scientists split the atom without recognizing that they had done so.
P2
████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████ █████████████ ████
Theory ·
Atoms can be split
It was known that in theory atoms could be split.
Experiment ·
Neutron-bombardment was not intended to split the atom
Scientists did not expect that to happen.
P3
██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ █ ████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████████ ████████████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ███
Experimental Results ·
Meitner and Fermi's experiment produced "puzzling" substances
They didn't know what the substances were (mainly) because they weren't expecting to have split uranium.
Experimental Results ·
Hahn identified substances as barium and technetium
Barium and technetium's protons and neutrons add up to the protons and neutrons of uranium.
P4
██ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ███████████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ █████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████
Hypothesis ·
Nuclear fission occurred
Meitner finally realized that they had achieved nuclear fission.
Passage Style
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
Single position
23.
The author's primary aim in ███ ███████ ██ ██
a
criticize a traditional ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████████ █ ███████████
It’s not clear that there is a “traditional view of scientific progress.” The author doesn’t suggest that people traditionally think advances in scientific understanding always build smoothly upon the data that’s collected. So the author doesn’t criticize a traditional view and (A) cannot be the purpose.
b
illustrate the often ███████ ███ ██ █████ █ ██████████ █████████ ████████ ████████
This best captures the author’s purpose, which is to make the point at the beginning of P1. The author makes this point through the example discussed in the rest of the passage.
c
judge the relative ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████████ ██ ███████
The author doesn’t evaluate the comparative importance of theory and experimentation. She doesn’t judge one to be more or less important than the other, or find them to be equally important. She simply describes the history of the development of nuclear fission to establish that point at the beginning of P1.
d
take issue with ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████
The author doesn’t set up her point as a criticism of another idea. It’s not clear that the author believes there’s an idea that scientists make slow and study progress, or that she thinks she’s debunking this idea.
e
display the way ██ █████ ████████████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ██████████ ████████
There’s no suggestion in the passage that the author believes the history of the discovery of nuclear fission reveals any “intellectual arrogance” or that such arrogance slowed scientific progress. Because (E) doesn’t occur in the passage, it can’t be the purpose.