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
Meitner finally realized that they had achieved nuclear fission.
Passage Style
Phenomenon-hypothesis
Single position
27.
According to the passage, which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██████
Question Type
Stated
It’s difficult to predict the answer to this question just based on the question stem, because much of the passage relates to physicists in the 1930s. Let’s rely on process of elimination.
a
It neglected earlier ███████████ █████████████
Not supported, because the author doesn’t suggest that physicists failed to realize atoms could be split due to any neglect (meaning, disregard) of earlier theoretical developments. Meitner may have made a crucial theoretical connection that allowed physicists to realize the significance of the neutron bombardment experiments, but this doesn’t imply that physicists besides Meitner neglected anything. There’s a difference between, on the one hand, failure to realize the significance of earlier developments and their relationship to one’s own experiments, and on the other hand, the neglect of earlier developments. In addition, we can intepret Meitner as part of the physics community of the 1930s, which would suggest that the community actually did not neglect earlier developments; Meitner’s realization of the theoretical connection between the neutron bombardment experiments and the splitting of atoms would be part the achievements of the 1930s physics community.
b
It reevaluated calculations ██████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ██████
Not supported, because we have no evidence that the physicists “reevaluated” calculations. We know that some theoretical physicsts had produced calculations that showed “in principle it should be possible to break atoms apart.” But we’re never told any other physicists changed their evaluation of these calculations. Perhaps other physicists didn’t realize the significance of these calculations, but that doesn’t imply anyone reevaluated these calculations.
c
It never identified ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ ████████
Anti-supported. The author indicates that physicists did identify the by-products of neutron bombardment of uranium: barium and technetium. Although Fermi and others didn’t identify those by-products, other physicists of the 1930s did.
d
It showed that ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████
Not supported, because the author never compares the ease with which uranium atoms can be split to the ease of splitting other kinds of atoms.
e
It recognized the ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ███████████
Stated. The author states that one reason Fermi and other physicists didn’t discover the by-products of neutron bombardment of uranium is the dangers of working with radioactive material. This indicates that the physicists were aware of the dangers.
Difficulty
53% of people who answer get this correct
This is a very difficult question.
It is slightly harder than the average question in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%156
164
75%171
Analysis
Stated
Phenomenon-hypothesis
Science
Single position
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
13%
162
b
11%
160
c
18%
160
d
4%
156
e
53%
167
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.