Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT5 S1 Q16 Explanation

The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

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

Start practicing free

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.

Stimulus

The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton is remembered chiefly for his treatises on motion and gravity. But Newton also conducted experiments secretly for many years based on the arcane theories of alchemy, trying unsuccessfully to transmute common metals into gold and produce rejuvenating elixirs. If the alchemists of the seventeenth century had eighteenth century would have been more advanced than it actually was.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Conclusion

The author wants you to accept this counterfactual: if 17th-century alchemists had gone public with their experiments, the chemistry of the next century would have advanced faster.

Evidence

The supporting facts are: (1) these experiments happened in secret, and (2) they mostly failed.

Evaluate

This is a Sufficient Assumption question, so we need an answer that, when added to the premises, guarantees the conclusion. The trick is the experiments were mostly failures. So the author isn't claiming they achieved their goals. The bridge has to be that even failed experiments, once published, help science advance.

Goal

Find the principle that says: sharing experimental results — successful or not — speeds up science.

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 assumptions would allow the conclusion concerning eighteenth-century chemistry to

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope4% picked this

    Scientific progress is retarded by the reluctance of historians to acknowledge the failures of some

    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.

  2. Correct86% picked this

    Advances in science are hastened when reports of experiments, whether successful or not, are available for

    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.

  3. Out of Scope3% picked this

    Newton’s work on motion and gravity would not have gained wide acceptance if the results of his work in alchemy

    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.

  4. Out of Scope1% picked this

    Increasing specialization within the sciences makes it difficult for scientists in one field to understand the

    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.

  5. Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

    The seventeenth-century alchemists could have achieved their goals only if their experiments had been subjected

    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.

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