Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT155 S3 P3 Q16 Explanation

Nanoscale Computer Chips

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

TopicsMain PointScience

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

This passage was adapted from an article published

Competition to make computer chips smaller and, consequently, faster and more efficient has driven a technological revolution, fueled economic growth, and rapidly made successive generations of computers obsolete. Yet at the current rate of progress this march toward miniaturization will hit a wall by about 2010—for many, an unthinkable prospect. The laws are investigating a different molecular pattern maker: peptides, amino acid chains that are shorter than proteins.

The project grew out of Belcher’s doctoral research on abalone. Her research group discovered in the mid-1990s that a specific peptide causes calcium carbonate to crystallize into the structure found only in the tough abalone shell. From that discovery, Belcher and Hu, Belcher’s postdoctoral adviser at the time, realized that if they resembling accelerated evolution, they developed additional related peptides from those that had the initially promising characteristics.

Hu says that in order to use such a method to assemble a set of circuit-building tools it would be necessary to identify many additional organic compounds that bind to circuit-component materials. The group is making progress on that quest. As they have expanded their targets to 20 more semiconductor materials, their glue. It will take that kind of finesse at the nanoscale to produce selfassembling circuits.

What this question is testing

Main Point

Topic

The author is profiling a piece of chemistry research aimed at solving a problem the computer industry is about to run into.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author isn't fighting an opponent — they're explaining why this research matters and where it stands.

Main Point

Here's the simpler version: computer chips have been getting smaller every year, but that march is about to hit a physical wall — transistors can't shrink below 25 nanometers using current techniques. Living cells, though, build smaller structures all the time. So scientists are looking to biology for tools. Belcher and Hu are betting on peptides (short amino-acid chains): they've found peptides that can grab onto specific semiconductor crystals and even act like molecular glue. That's the kind of fine-grained tool you'd need to build circuits that assemble themselves at the nanoscale.

P1: A wall is coming, and biology might help

Chips have been getting smaller, faster, cheaper — but at the current rate, this hits a wall by about 2010. The laws of physics say current transistors can't go below 25 nanometers. Cells, however, build complex structures smaller than that all the time. So the question is whether we can harness those biological processes. Most researchers focus on DNA. Belcher and Hu are working with peptides instead.

P2: How the idea developed

Belcher had been studying abalone shells and found a peptide that controls how calcium carbonate crystallizes there. She and Hu reasoned: if we can find peptides that control crystal growth in semiconductor materials, we'd have a tool for building tiny electronics. No such peptide was known, so they took the bold approach of growing a billion random peptides and testing which ones grabbed onto silicon, gallium arsenide, or indium phosphide crystals. They found a handful, and then refined them by a process resembling evolution.

P3: Where the project is now

To make a real toolkit they'd need many more binding peptides. They're getting there — hundreds of them, across 20+ materials. They're also designing peptides that latch onto two different crystals at once, which acts like a tiny dab of glue. That kind of precision is what circuits that build themselves will need.

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

The question
16.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of

Answer choices

  1. Too Pessimistic1% picked this

    Although preliminary results suggest that Belcher and Hu’s research on peptides and semiconductors could result in a breakthrough in the miniaturization of computer chips,

    The ending of this answer, "enough obstacles remain to make such an outcome unlikely" is overly pessimistic. Our author mainly stayed out of this passage. His only evaluative comment in the final paragraph is optimistic: "they are making progress on that quest". This answer does what many choice (A)'s do -- it over-values the last thing you read.

  2. Wrong Emphasis28% picked this

    Advances in computer chip speed and efficiency beyond the year 2010 may depend on the outcome of various current research projects, including that conducted

    This answer seems pretty darn acceptable. Its weakest part is treating Belcher and Hu as just an example among "various current research projects". True, there is also work going on to see if we can harness DNA for the sake of advancing computer chip speed/efficiency, but only half a sentence in the passage is allocated to that. The 2nd and 3rd paragraph are specifically about B&H's peptide research, so the emphasis of this main clause just seems to unfairly leave them on the side of the road: Advances in chip speed may depend on the outcome of various current research projects.

  3. Correct67% picked this

    Belcher and Hu’s research on the abilities of some peptides to bind to semiconductor materials indicates that peptides might eventually be applied to the

    Why this is right

    Unlike (B), this answer correctly makes B&H's research the subject of the main clause, since it was the focus of the passage. The strength of "might eventually be applied" is correct given the early, tentative, but encouraging state of this field. And the answer choice relates their research back to the context of the first paragraph: solving the size limit problem of conventional transistors.

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

  4. Wrong Takeaway3% picked this

    Belcher and Hu’s discovery of peptides that cause the development of a particular crystalline structure in a natural biological context suggests that semiconductor

    The first half of this sentence is okay, but the second half goes off the rails. The author wouldn't tentatively say that semiconductor materials might bind to biological compounds. At the end of the 2nd paragraph, "they found a few peptides that .. bound .. to one of the [semiconductor] crystals in the experiment". We already know now that we can get certain peptides to bind with certain semiconductor materials. We might be able to use this knowledge to build super tiny organic circuits.

  5. Wrong Big Picture1% picked this

    The application of Belcher’s work on abalone to the world of semiconductors shows that pure scientific research can

    The reason we're talking about Belcher's work is not to make a broad point about how pure science can have surprising practical benefits. Our big picture is Problem / Solution ... we're talking about Belcher's work because it might be the Solution to the Problem of hitting the minimum size threshold for transistors.

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