- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed May 31, 2017 11:17 am
#35549
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14311)
The correct answer choice is (A)
This Specific Reference/Purpose question asks us to identify what the author means by “the relevant
evidence” in line 62. Such questions almost always require a more thorough understanding of the
context in which the quoted reference appears, and their answers should generally be prephrased:
The “relevant evidence” refers primarily to the results of experiments that corroborated the existence
of nuclear fission without being recognized as such at that time (i.e. “lacking mainly the right
conceptual link,” lines 63-64).
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The evidence relevant to the discovery of
nuclear fission was gathered between 1934, when Fermi first bombarded uranium with neutrons,
and 1939, when Meitner provided the crucial theoretical connection (lines 7-11). This evidence had
been ignored because scientists lacked the theoretical connections necessary to appreciate its full
significance.
Answer choice (B): Although the results of Meitner’s experiments were relevant to the discovery of
nuclear fission, they cannot be described as “lacking the right conceptual link.” Rather, they were
instrumental in establishing that link.
Answer choice (C): As with answer choice (B), the evidence obtained by Hahn was not only
“relevant” to the realization that atoms were being split, but it also paved the way for this realization.
The author’s phrase, by contrast, refers to the kind of evidence scientists obtained without
recognizing what they were witnessing (“lacking mainly the right conceptual link”).
Answer choice (D): As with answer choices (B) and (C), the evidence described here—though
technically “relevant”—does not match the intended meaning of the phrase in line 62. The phrase
more appropriately refers to the results of experiments that corroborated the existence of nuclear
fission without being recognized as such, i.e. results “lacking mainly the right conceptual link” (lines
63-64). Hahn’s results, by contrast, helped Meitner recognize that atoms were being split.
Answer choice (E): The fact that the radioactive products of neutron bombardment of uranium
went unidentified for so long hindered Fermi’s understanding of nuclear fission, but was not itself
evidence relevant to the discovery of nuclear fission. It was the radioactive products themselves that
would have been the relevant evidence, not Fermi’s failure to identify them as such.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14311)
The correct answer choice is (A)
This Specific Reference/Purpose question asks us to identify what the author means by “the relevant
evidence” in line 62. Such questions almost always require a more thorough understanding of the
context in which the quoted reference appears, and their answers should generally be prephrased:
The “relevant evidence” refers primarily to the results of experiments that corroborated the existence
of nuclear fission without being recognized as such at that time (i.e. “lacking mainly the right
conceptual link,” lines 63-64).
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The evidence relevant to the discovery of
nuclear fission was gathered between 1934, when Fermi first bombarded uranium with neutrons,
and 1939, when Meitner provided the crucial theoretical connection (lines 7-11). This evidence had
been ignored because scientists lacked the theoretical connections necessary to appreciate its full
significance.
Answer choice (B): Although the results of Meitner’s experiments were relevant to the discovery of
nuclear fission, they cannot be described as “lacking the right conceptual link.” Rather, they were
instrumental in establishing that link.
Answer choice (C): As with answer choice (B), the evidence obtained by Hahn was not only
“relevant” to the realization that atoms were being split, but it also paved the way for this realization.
The author’s phrase, by contrast, refers to the kind of evidence scientists obtained without
recognizing what they were witnessing (“lacking mainly the right conceptual link”).
Answer choice (D): As with answer choices (B) and (C), the evidence described here—though
technically “relevant”—does not match the intended meaning of the phrase in line 62. The phrase
more appropriately refers to the results of experiments that corroborated the existence of nuclear
fission without being recognized as such, i.e. results “lacking mainly the right conceptual link” (lines
63-64). Hahn’s results, by contrast, helped Meitner recognize that atoms were being split.
Answer choice (E): The fact that the radioactive products of neutron bombardment of uranium
went unidentified for so long hindered Fermi’s understanding of nuclear fission, but was not itself
evidence relevant to the discovery of nuclear fission. It was the radioactive products themselves that
would have been the relevant evidence, not Fermi’s failure to identify them as such.
