Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT143 S2 P4 Q23 Explanation

The Myth of Liquid Glass

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionScience

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

To glass researchers it seems somewhat strange that many people throughout the world share the persistent belief that window glass flows slowly downward like a very viscous liquid. Repeated in reference books, in science classes, and elsewhere, the idea has often been invoked to explain ripply windows in old houses. The origins glass retains an amorphous atomic structure, but it takes on the physical properties of a solid.

However, a new study debunks the persistent belief that stained glass windows in medieval cathedrals are noticeably thicker at the bottom because the glass flows downward. Under the force of gravity, certain solid materials including glass can, in fact, flow slightly. But Brazilian researcher Edgar Dutra Zanotto has calculated the time needed cathedral glass would require a period well beyond the age of the universe.

The chemical composition of the glass determines the rate of flow. Even germanium oxide glass, which flows more easily than other types, would take many trillions of years to sag noticeably, Zanotto calculates. Medieval stained glass contains impurities that could lower the viscosity and speed the flow to some degree, but even negligible ability to flow, it would have to be heated to at least 350 degrees Celsius.

The difference in thickness sometimes observed in antique windows probably results instead from glass manufacturing methods. Until the nineteenth century, the only way to make window glass was to blow molten glass into a large globe and then flatten it into a disk. Whirling the disk introduced ripples and thickened the edges. is made by floating liquid glass on molten tin. This process makes the surface extremely flat.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

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.

Which one of the following best summarizes the author's view of the results

Answer choices

  1. Correct61% picked this

    They provide some important quantitative data to support a view that was already held

    Why this is right

    We can match this up with the last sentence of the 3rd, in which the author says that Zanotto's study dramatically demonstrates what many scientists had reasoned earlier. That sentence doesn't mention quantitative data, but can we support the notion that Zanotto provides important quantitative data? Sure. The end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd paragraphs discuss Zanotto's study and both of those sentences talk about his calculations. He calculated the time needed for viscous flow to change the thickness of different types of glass by a noticeable amount (many trillions of years at a minimum).

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

  2. Out of Scope: stimulated new research16% picked this

    They have stimulated important new research regarding an issue that scientists previously thought

    Nothing in the 2nd or 3rd paragraphs talks about new research being stimulated by Zanotto.

  3. Out of Scope: backstory of myth13% picked this

    They offer a highly plausible explanation of how a mistaken hypothesis came to

    This is saying that Zanotto's study tells us the story of how people came to mistakenly believe that glass flows downward. But there's no support for that. From what we're told, all Zanotto's study does it provide calculations that show that people's belief that glass flows downward is false. He debunks their belief; he doesn't explain the origin story of their belief.

  4. Out of Scope: reconciling views4% picked this

    They provide a conceptual basis for reconciling two scientific views that were previously thought

    There's nothing in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs that's talking about reconciling scientific views. Is there anything in the passage about two scientific views that were previously thought to be incompatible (i.e. contradicting each other)?

  5. Out of Scope: two hypotheses6% picked this

    They suggest that neither of two hypotheses adequately explains a

    The puzzling phenomenon was "why is the glass in old houses ripply? why do stained glass windows in medieval cathedrals get thicker at the bottom?" There is only one hypothesis being considered at this point in the passage: glass flows downward over time, since its atoms are not in a fixed crystal structure. Zanotto's study definitely suggests that "glass flows downward" is not an adequate explanation for the puzzling phenomenon (we could say even that it's an incredibly wrongheaded explanation). But there isn't any second hypothesis that his research is undermining.

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