Passage Discussion

[andrewgong01]

Here's my take on the passage

I did not really sense a scale as it seemed like the passage was more so to explain (not even argue?- i think) the process of a scientific discovery (nuclear fission) . But the closest contrast I had is a really skewed scale of "Scientific Understanding is built directly vs Not Built Discovery" where there seems to be really little (if any) support for the former side. I did not write out a scale because it seemed too skewed on the passage

Passage Map
P1: Discussion of the path to discovery in science and presents an example to show this
P2: Theoretical backdrop knowledge in the field and what scientists thought
P3: Describes the process of discovery ; new discovery was made where barium was produced from bombardment
P4 : Meitner synthesis the discovery of barium with paragraph 2's theoretical consideration .

It seems like overall the paragraphs relate to each other temporally on the process of discovering nuclear fission. But on first read the jump between P1 and P2 was unclear and i did not see the overall structure till the really end and somewhat deduced this must all be the temporal process of discovery but this was not entirely clear until I did some of the questions too

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice work!

I would definitely abandon the idea of Scale here. The author is just telling a linear story for the sake of underscoring a general point.

I read more for Author's Purpose in the first paragraph. Many of these Purposes have scales, but some don't.

Here's my list of common Purposes (more than one can apply to the same passage):

Clarify a misconception
what’s the misconception? What does the author think
instead?

Problem/Solution
what is the problem? does the author propose or
evaluate a solution?

Present a Debate
what are the two sides of the debate? does the author
side with either?

Old vs. New
what’s the old / what’s the new? how does the author
feel about the new?

Explain a Change
what trend/change is occurring? what’s the author’s
explanation for why?

Highlight a Distinction
what is notable about this book, this scholar, this
situation

Unpack a Thesis / Illustrate by Example
the thesis appears early and body paragraphs flesh it out

Criticize / Defend
why does the author think criticism is warranted or
unwarranted?

I would see the purpose as "Illustrate by Example" because the passage began with a generalization, and then said "A case in point is ....".

So I would try to make my Passage Map reflect the core ideas in the generalization:

"Sometimes, advances don't build directly in response to data, and at a certain point when we figure stuff out, we can't believe how long we overlooked that answer."

P1 - Generalization (illustrated by the case of discovering nuclear fission)

P2 - Background on the case.
Nuclear fission was already a thought people had before the data got amassed (it was just considered an unlikely thought)

P3 - The data is amassing, but no one can figure out what's going on

P4 - Meitner finally solves it, using an idea that already existed. It's kinda surprising that no one made the connection sooner. ("it became clear that the relevant evidence had been present for some time ...")

Hope this helps.