Q16 - The seventeenth century phisicist

[jardinsouslapluie5]

Prepared to be sound dumb to grasp the point of this stimulus, but what's got to do with Newton's failing experiments?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument concludes that eighteenth century chemistry would have been more advanced than it was if seventeenth century alchemists would have published the results of their experiments. Why? We're told that there were seventeenth century alchemists (of whom Newton is listed as an example) who conducted experiments. We're not told that any of these alchemists' experiments were successful, just that they had conducted some unsuccessful experiments.

We're asked to find a link that would ensure the argument's conclusion is properly drawn. Answer choice (B) builds a bridge between publishing experiments (successful or not) and advances in science. One can speculate as to why publicizing unsuccessful experiments would have advanced science, though it's not needed based on the argument. For example, if Newton had published his unsuccessful, maybe there would have been less alchemists trying to conduct the same experiments who could have then been working on new approaches that would have led to advances in science. The reason why is really not important for this argument.

Incorrect Answers

(A) does not address the lack of publication of scientific research. The reluctance of historians to acknowledge the failures of great scientists is irrelevant. The important thing is whether the publication of research would have led to advances in science.
(C) undermines the conclusion by suggesting that Newton's important science would have been questioned if he had published his less credible research.
(D) is out of scope. The argument never mentions increasing specialization in science.
(E) places a requirement on the success of alchemists but does nothing to ensure the advance of science.