Logical Reasoning

PT5 · S1 · Q16 The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • 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

Start practicing free

The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton is remembered chiefly for his treatises on motion and gravity.

Conclusion

If 17th-century alchemists had published the results of their experiments, 18th-century chemistry would have been more advanced than it actually was.

Evidence

Newton and others conducted alchemical experiments secretly for many years. Most of these experiments were unsuccessful (e.g., trying to transmute metals into gold).

Evaluate

The conclusion claims publishing would have advanced 18th-century chemistry, but the experiments were mostly failures. The author needs to bridge the gap between "publishing failed experiments" and "advancing the field." That bridge: even unsuccessful experiments, when shared, somehow advance the field.

Goal

Find a principle that, once accepted, guarantees the conclusion: sharing experimental results — even failures — accelerates scientific progress.

16.

Which one of the following assumptions would allow the conclusion concerning eighteenth-century chemistry to be properly drawn?

  1. Scientific progress is retarded by

    Out of Scope

    This is about historians and their reluctance to acknowledge failures. The argument is about the alchemists themselves publishing their results, not about historians documenting them. This principle doesn't bridge the gap between secret experiments and scientific progress.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Advances in science are hastened

    Why this is right

    This is the bridge. Add this principle to the premises and the conclusion follows. The alchemists conducted experiments (mostly unsuccessful) that they didn't publish. If sharing experimental results — successful or not — hastens scientific progress, then publishing the alchemy experiments would have hastened 18th-century chemistry. The crucial phrase is "whether successful or not," which handles the fact that the experiments mostly failed.

    Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    86% picked this

  3. Newton’s work on motion and

    Out of Scope

    This is a claim about Newton's reputation if his alchemy work had been public. The conclusion is about the advancement of 18th-century chemistry, not about Newton's personal credibility. This doesn't connect alchemy experiments to scientific progress.

    3% picked this

  4. Increasing specialization within the sciences

    Out of Scope

    This is about specialization in modern science. The argument concerns 17th- and 18th-century chemistry and alchemy. Specialization across fields has nothing to do with whether publishing alchemy experiments would have advanced 18th-century chemistry.

    1% picked this

  5. The seventeenth-century alchemists could have

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is about the alchemists achieving their own goals (transmutation, elixirs). The argument's conclusion is about chemistry advancing, not about alchemy succeeding. Even if (E) is true, we'd only get "alchemy succeeded had it been public" — not "chemistry would have advanced." Wrong target.

    6% picked this

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