Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT136 S1 P4 Q26 Explanation

Scientific Advancement and Nuclear Fission

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

TopicsApplicationScience

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

Application

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
26.

Given the information in the passage, which one of the following, if true, would have been most likely to reduce the amount of time it took for physicists

Answer choices

  1. No Causal Connection4% picked this

    The physicists conducting the experiments in neutron bombardment of uranium were all using the

    Same techniques vs. different techniques doesn't seem to have any connection to any of the causal factors we were told about why physicists didn't realize what they were seeing.

  2. Correct70% picked this

    The physicists conducting the experiments in neutron bombardment of uranium did not have particular expectations regarding the likely

    Why this is right

    This is dealing with the 4th thing we found, from the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph: These products remained unidentified ... more significantly because of the expectation that they would all be elements close to uranium in nuclear composition. If physicists hadn't been expecting byproducts to resemble uranium, they would have been quicker to identify one of the byproducts as barium, which is ultimately what led to the epiphany that uranium atoms had been split.

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

  3. Opposite, if anything9% picked this

    The physicists conducting the experiments in neutron bombardment of uranium had not been aware of the calculations indicating that in principle it

    Physicists' awareness that in principle it was possible to split atoms would help them to realize atoms were being split. Taking that awareness away would make it even harder to realize that atoms were being split.

  4. No Causal Connection11% picked this

    More physicists concentrated on obtaining experimental results from the neutron bombardment

    The quantity of physicists trying to obtain experimental results from bombarding uranium is never identified as one of the causal factors we were told about why physicists didn't realize what they were seeing.

  5. No Causal Connection6% picked this

    Physicists conducted experiments in the neutron bombardment of some substance other

    The choice to use uranium vs. some other element is never identified as one of the causal factors we were told about why physicists didn't realize what they were seeing.

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