Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT136 S1 P4 Q23 Explanation

Scientific Advancement and Nuclear Fission

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

TopicsPrimary 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

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. A case in point is the discovery of a means by which the compiled increasing evidence that nuclear fission had been achieved, without, however, recognizing what they were witnessing.

Earlier, even before the neutron and proton composition of atomic nuclei had been experimentally demonstrated, some theoretical physicists had produced calculations indicating that in principle it should be possible to break atoms apart. But the neutron-bombardment experiments were not aimed at achieving such a result, and researchers were not even receptive to be analogous to a pebble, thrown through a window, causing a house to collapse.

In Berlin, Meitner pursued research related to that of the Italians, discovering a puzzling group of radioactive substances produced by neutron bombardment of uranium. Fermi and others achieved numerous similar results. These products remained unidentified partly because precise chemical analyses were hampered by the minute quantities of the substances produced and the of the experiment, added up to the number of such particles that compose a uranium nucleus.

It was Meitner who finally recognized the significance of the data in relation to underlying theoretical considerations: the researchers had actually been splitting uranium atoms. Coining the term “nuclear fission,” she quickly submitted her conclusion for publication in a paper coauthored with physicist Otto Frisch. When scientists in Europe and North America had been present for some time, lacking mainly the right conceptual link.

What this question is testing

Primary 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
23.

The author’s primary aim in the passage

Answer choices

  1. Trap2% picked this

    criticize a traditional view of scientific progress and advocate

  2. Correct83% picked this

    illustrate the often erratic way in which a scientific community

    Why this is right

    Answer B is correct.

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

  3. Trap6% picked this

    judge the relative importance of theory and experimentation

  4. Trap3% picked this

    take issue with the idea that scientists make slow,

  5. Trap7% picked this

    display the way in which intellectual arrogance sometimes hinders

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