- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed May 31, 2017 11:09 am
#35546
Passage Discussion
Paragraph One:
The passage opens with an observation that scientific progress is not always made in direct response
to the amassed data, because scientists can take awhile to make the theoretical connections between
their findings. The author supports this assertion by describing the discovery of nuclear fission.
Despite increasing evidence that fission had been achieved, scientists did not recognize what they
were witnessing until Meitner provided the crucial theoretical explanation in 1939, five years after
Enrico Fermi and others had obtained the first evidence of fission.
Paragraph Two:
This paragraph suggests that the phenomenon of nuclear fission had been mathematically predicted
even before Fermi conducted his neutron-bombardment experiments. The author goes on to explain
why these calculations were ignored for so long: the physics community had assumed that a
neutron’s breaking apart a uranium nucleus was virtually impossible, and so never aimed to achieve
fission. Note that the second paragraph describes a circumstance that largely predates the events
described in the first (do not assume that the order of presentation of the items in the passage would
indicate any temporal relationship between them).
Paragraph Three:
This relatively lengthy paragraph accomplishes several objectives. First, it compares Meitner’s
research to that of Fermi, explaining why Fermi did not make a theoretical breakthrough. While both
scientists found that neutron bombardment of uranium produced various radioactive substances,
Fermi did not recognize this as evidence that atoms were being split. His oversight resulted from his
failure to identify the substances produced, which itself was due to the small amount of substances
produced, the dangers of working with them, and the presumption that they would all be elements
close to uranium. These by-products were eventually identified by Meitner and Hahn, which paved
the way to the realization that scientists had actually been splitting uranium atoms all along.
Paragraph Four:
The passage concludes with a historical account of Meitner’s theoretical breakthrough where
she coined the term “nuclear fission,” and describes its positive reception among the scientific
community.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
Test makers present several different Viewpoints in this passage, and part of the challenge is to
track both the topical information (which is about nuclear physics and is predictably complex) and
the various perspectives. There are as many as four viewpoints here: the commonly held skepticism
toward the possibility of nuclear fission, shared by Fermi and his group; the theoretical physicists in
line 16 indicating that such a possibility exists; the views of Meitner and Hahn, who recognized the
significance of the by-products overlooked by Fermi; and the author’s views regarding the erratic
nature of scientific progress.
As a whole, the passage has a predictable Structure for a science passage:
inherent in achieving scientific progress.
The main Argument about the unpredictable advances in scientific understanding is outlined in
the first paragraph and alluded to throughout the passage. The second and third paragraphs present
an argument as to why some scientists failed to recognize that fission had been achieved, and why
others succeeded.
The Main Point of the passage can be found in the first sentence of the passage (lines 1-5): scientific
understanding follows an often unpredictable course, as scientists can take awhile to “connect the
dots” and recognize the significance of their data.
Paragraph One:
The passage opens with an observation that scientific progress is not always made in direct response
to the amassed data, because scientists can take awhile to make the theoretical connections between
their findings. The author supports this assertion by describing the discovery of nuclear fission.
Despite increasing evidence that fission had been achieved, scientists did not recognize what they
were witnessing until Meitner provided the crucial theoretical explanation in 1939, five years after
Enrico Fermi and others had obtained the first evidence of fission.
Paragraph Two:
This paragraph suggests that the phenomenon of nuclear fission had been mathematically predicted
even before Fermi conducted his neutron-bombardment experiments. The author goes on to explain
why these calculations were ignored for so long: the physics community had assumed that a
neutron’s breaking apart a uranium nucleus was virtually impossible, and so never aimed to achieve
fission. Note that the second paragraph describes a circumstance that largely predates the events
described in the first (do not assume that the order of presentation of the items in the passage would
indicate any temporal relationship between them).
Paragraph Three:
This relatively lengthy paragraph accomplishes several objectives. First, it compares Meitner’s
research to that of Fermi, explaining why Fermi did not make a theoretical breakthrough. While both
scientists found that neutron bombardment of uranium produced various radioactive substances,
Fermi did not recognize this as evidence that atoms were being split. His oversight resulted from his
failure to identify the substances produced, which itself was due to the small amount of substances
produced, the dangers of working with them, and the presumption that they would all be elements
close to uranium. These by-products were eventually identified by Meitner and Hahn, which paved
the way to the realization that scientists had actually been splitting uranium atoms all along.
Paragraph Four:
The passage concludes with a historical account of Meitner’s theoretical breakthrough where
she coined the term “nuclear fission,” and describes its positive reception among the scientific
community.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
Test makers present several different Viewpoints in this passage, and part of the challenge is to
track both the topical information (which is about nuclear physics and is predictably complex) and
the various perspectives. There are as many as four viewpoints here: the commonly held skepticism
toward the possibility of nuclear fission, shared by Fermi and his group; the theoretical physicists in
line 16 indicating that such a possibility exists; the views of Meitner and Hahn, who recognized the
significance of the by-products overlooked by Fermi; and the author’s views regarding the erratic
nature of scientific progress.
As a whole, the passage has a predictable Structure for a science passage:
- Paragraph 1: Introduce the author’s main point about scientific progress, and illustrate this
claim by describing the delayed discovery of nuclear fission.
Paragraph 2: Explain why earlier calculations indicating the theoretical possibility of
nuclear fission had been overlooked.
Paragraph 3: Give reasons why Fermi failed to realize that atoms were being split, and
elaborate on some of the crucial findings made by Hahn and Meitner that
paved the way for their discovery.
Paragraph 4: Affirm the significance of Meitner’s insight and briefly summarize its
reception.
inherent in achieving scientific progress.
The main Argument about the unpredictable advances in scientific understanding is outlined in
the first paragraph and alluded to throughout the passage. The second and third paragraphs present
an argument as to why some scientists failed to recognize that fission had been achieved, and why
others succeeded.
The Main Point of the passage can be found in the first sentence of the passage (lines 1-5): scientific
understanding follows an often unpredictable course, as scientists can take awhile to “connect the
dots” and recognize the significance of their data.