Scientific Advancement and Nuclear Fission

Answer choices

1. A

   Neglected vs. Rejected17% picked this

   It neglected earlier theoretical

   There were earlier theoretical developments discussed in the beginning of paragraph 2, but the physics community didn't neglect them, i.e. fail to consider. The physics community rejected them. They listened to the idea that it was possible to break an atom apart, but they thought the idea that their experiment, involving bombarding uranium with neutrons, would be as likely to involve splitting atoms apart as it would be for a pebble through a window to collapse a house. There was a common view that this "theoretical possibility" was, in principle, possible, but it wasn't going to happen in practical reality. I can see being somewhat tormented by this answer, but it's a stretch to say that the calculations produced by some theoretical physicists qualify as "a theoretical development", and it's a stretch to say that by considering and rejecting this idea, the physics community was neglecting this deveopment.

   17%
2. B

   Out of Scope: reevaluate calculations15% picked this

   It reevaluated calculations indicating that atoms could

   The only calculations discussed come from the theoretical researchers at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph. The physics community seems to accept the legitimacy of the calculations, in principle, but thinks we're never gonna see an atom get split in real life. They reevaluated that interpretation / evaluation of the calculations, but they never reevaluated the calculations.

   15%
3. C

   Too Strong: never Contradicted13% picked this

   It never identified the by-products of neutron bombardment

   It definitely didn't initially identify the by-products, but the physicist Otto Frisch in late 1938 had already identified barium and technetium as resulting by-products of the bombardment. So at some point in the 1930s (not never), the physics community did identify the by-products.

   13%
4. D

   Too Strong: easiest Opposite3% picked this

   It showed that uranium atoms were the easiest

   The physics community did not think that uranium atoms could be split (other than maybe as a theoretical possibility in a research paper). So they definitely weren't showing that uranium atoms are the easiest to split. (although if they are easy to split, that probably explains why uranium is a desired substance when someone is trying to build a nuclear weapon)

   3%
5. E

   Correct52% picked this

   It recognized the dangers of working with

   Why this is right

   Some correct answers just deserve to be booed out of the room. "Booooo! Get outta here (E). This test sucks!" All of those are healthy, normal reactions. This is the sort of correct answer that is just testing a needle in a haystack line reference. You don't want to blame yourself for not having seen it coming. But ... you want to work on yourself, when it comes to the fact that you may have looked at the answer at too quickly decided it was wrong (maybe even grayed it out). We need to be more agnostic about whether something was talked about. Our memories are far from perfect, and LSAC is perfectly happy to test certain moments of the passage that were small, obscure, and not worth remembering on a first read. We can use Ctrl/Command + F as our friend, if we think there's a keyword we could search for. Here, I would consider "radioactive". When we start searching for it, it shows up twice in the early part of the 3rd paragraph. The 3rd sentence lays out a causal difference-maker: These [byproducts of the uranium bombardment] remained unidentified partly because precise analyses were hampered by the minute quantities of the substances and the dangers of working with highly radioactive materials. Why weren't scientists doing precise analyses on these radioactive byproducts? - one reason was the dangers of working with radioactive materials If scientists were avoiding studying this stuff because of the dangers of working with it, then they clearly recognized the dangers of working with it.

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

   52%