PT136.S1.P4.Q23 > Analytics

Hide analysis

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.

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.

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.

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 ███ ███████ ██ ██

Question Type

Implied

Purpose of passage

The author makes her point clear at the beginning of 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.” The rest of the passage presents an example of this point. The discovery of nuclear fission demonstrates how a scientific advance often doesn’t build directly or smoothly in response to the data that’s collected. The author’s purpose is to make the point at the beginning of P1.

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.

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.

85%

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.

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.

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.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 136 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 23

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 136 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 23

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?