Robert Boyle

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

TopicsInferenceSociety

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

Free to start

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

Historians attempting to explain how scientific work was done in the laboratory of the seventeenth-century chemist and natural philosopher Robert Boyle must address a fundamental discrepancy between how such experimentation was actually performed and the seventeenth-century rhetoric describing it. Leaders of the new Royal Society of London in the 1660s insisted that for God’s truth in nature was taken as a sign of their nobility and Christian piety.

This rhetoric has been so effective that one modern historian assures us that Boyle himself actually performed all of the thousand or more experiments he reported. In fact, due to poor eyesight, fragile health, and frequent absences from his laboratory, Boyle turned over much of the labor of obtaining and recording experimental Nor was Boyle unique in relying on technicians without publicly crediting their work.

Why were the contributions of these technicians not recognized by their employers? One reason is the historical tendency, which has persisted into the twentieth century, to view scientific discovery as resulting from momentary flashes of individual insight rather than from extended periods of cooperative work by individuals with varying levels of knowledge work, but their contributions to the making of scientific knowledge were largely—and conveniently—ignored by their employers.

What this question is testing

Inference

Anticipate

The rhetoric in P1 is essentially "real scientists perform their own experiments." P2 says Boyle didn't — he had technicians do the work. So the rhetoric would have described Boyle's lab accurately if he had actually done the work himself.

Goal

Looking for an answer that closes the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. Be wary of:

Answers that swap in a different fix (acknowledging technicians, recognizing cooperation) — these don't match the rhetoric's actual claim

Answers that flip Boyle's personal traits without addressing the lab work itself

Answers about Royal Society membership, which doesn't fix the rhetoric/reality gap

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

The question

It can be inferred from the passage that the “seventeenth-century rhetoric” mentioned in line 6 would have more accurately described the experimentation performed in Boyle’s laboratory if which

Answer choices

Wrong View7% picked this
Unlike many seventeenth-century scientists, Boyle recognized that most scientific discoveries resulted from the cooperative efforts
The Royal Society rhetoric wasn't that science is cooperative — it was that authentic science depends on the scientist personally performing the experiments. Recognizing cooperative effort would actually go against the rhetoric, not align with it.
7%
Wrong View6% picked this
Unlike many seventeenth-century scientists, Boyle maintained a deeply rooted and pervasive contempt
The rhetoric explicitly rejected contempt for manual labor — P1 says the scientists were "rejecting the traditional contempt for manual operations." Boyle holding contempt for manual labor would clash with the rhetoric, not match it.
6%
Out of Scope2% picked this
Unlike many seventeenth-century scientists, Boyle was a member of the Royal
The passage doesn't suggest Boyle wasn't a Royal Society member, and Royal Society membership has nothing to do with whether the rhetoric described his lab accurately. The gap was about who did the work, not credentials.
2%
Wrong View12% picked this
Boyle generously acknowledged the contribution of the technicians who worked in
Acknowledging the technicians would address the credit problem in P3, but not the rhetoric. The rhetoric demanded that scientists themselves perform the experiments — not that they credit the people who did. Acknowledgment doesn't close the actual gap the rhetoric created.
12%
Correct73% picked this
Boyle himself performed the actual labor of obtaining and recording
Why this is right
The rhetoric demanded that scientists themselves perform, observe, and record their experiments. P2 says Boyle didn't — he turned that work over to technicians. So if Boyle had personally performed the labor of obtaining and recording results, the rhetoric would have accurately described his lab. (E) closes exactly the gap the passage identifies.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
73%

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

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