Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT113 S1 P2 Q12 Explanation

Marie Curie

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsParagraph PurposeScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Spurred by the discovery that a substance containing uranium emitted radiation, Marie Curie began studying radioactivity in 1897. She first tested gold and copper for radiation but found none. She then tested pitchblende, a mineral that was known to contain uranium, and discovered that it was more radioactive than uranium. Acting on radiating and nonradiating elements, she was unable to postulate a mechanism by which to explain radiation.

It is now known that radiation occurs when certain isotopes (atoms of the same element that differ slightly in their atomic structure) decay, and that emission rates are not constant but decrease very slowly with time. Some critics have recently faulted Curie for not reaching these conclusions herself, but it would have in a process that takes billions of years, are present in nature exclusively in radioactive form.

Furthermore, we must recall that in Curie’s time the nature of the atom itself was still being debated. Physicists believed that matter could not be divided indefinitely but instead would eventually be reduced to its indivisible components. Chemists, on the other hand, observing that chemical reactions took place as if matter was concerned with the question of whether or not such indivisible atoms actually existed.

As a physicist, Curie conjectured that radiating substances might lose mass in the form of atoms, but this idea is very different from the explanation eventually arrived at. It was not until the 1930s that advances in quantum mechanics overthrew the earlier understanding of the atom and showed that radiation occurs because recognize that it was Curie’s investigation of radiation that paved the way for the later breakthroughs.

What this question is testing

Paragraph Purpose

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
12.

The primary function of the first paragraph of the passage

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Emphasis: not about Curie8% picked this

    narrate the progress of turn-of-the-century studies

    This paragraph/passage is all about Curie. She literally appears in every sentence in the first paragraph, so we're not accepting any answer that isn't about Curie.

  2. Wrong Emphasis: not about Curie1% picked this

    present a context for the conflict between physicists

    This paragraph/passage is all about Curie. She literally appears in every sentence in the first paragraph, so we're not accepting any answer that isn't about Curie.

  3. Correct88% picked this

    provide the factual background for an evaluation of

    Why this is right

    This answer nicely captures that we dive straight into details, aka "the factual background". There's isn't any evaluation of Curie's work in this paragraph. That part of the answer is just explaining how this first paragraph will relate to the rest of the passage. The evaluation comes at the very end. This first paragraph is nothing but factual details. The second paragraph starts to introduce opinions from critics. So it matches well enough to say that the 1st paragraph functions as the factual backdrop for what Curie did / didn't do in the field of radiation.

    Skill tested: Paragraph Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Out of Scope: structure of argument2% picked this

    outline the structure of the author’s

    As we assessed earlier, this first paragraph just goes immediately into details. There are no framing ideas or big picture announcements. We just land at the beginning of the story of Curie's radioactive discoveries. The author's central argument is, "Curie made some badass discoveries and shouldn't be faulted for what she wasn't able to figure out". The details in the first paragraph relate to that central argument, but since all the sentences in the first paragraph are neutral, descriptive, factual ideas, we can't say that the author is every outlining his own argument there.

  5. Opposite Point of View1% picked this

    identify the error in Curie’s work that undermines

    The author is ultimately saying, "Curie's discoveries were incredibly important, and her inability to explain radiation was totally understandable." He doesn't ever argue that there was any error in her work that undermines its usefulness.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free