Q25

[ericha3535]

What's wrong with E?

[leroyjenkins]

The question is asking for an answer that consists of evidence that was overlooked by the physicists.

So the answer must be a piece, or pieces, of evidence that went overlooked.

E does not present any evidence. E is simply a fact about the lack of evidence (or the lack of identification of some evidence).

Since E does not even constitute evidence, it cannot be the answer.

If you look back to paragraph one, you see that, starting in 1934, scientists were conducting experiments about some phenomenon, and then Meitner "provided the crucial theoretical connection" in 1939 (lines 9-11).

The relevant evidence mentioned in line 62 relates to "the right conceptual link," mentioned in lines 63-64. So if you look at line 62-64 in relation to the first paragraph, A is a very good match.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Excellent summation, leoangelakos! Good eye for targeting a critical difference between (A) and (E). For the sake of future students, let's break down the entire question.

This inference question demands that we determine how the author is using the phrase "the relevant evidence" in line 62. Reading the entire sentence, we can see that this evidence must 1) have been present for some time 2) have originally lacked the conceptual link to nuclear fission and 3) corroborate Meitner's findings/claims of nuclear fission.

Lines 7-13 lay out the timeline:
1934: first bombardment of uranium with neutrons
1934-1939: scientists compiled evidence of nuclear fission without realizing it
1939: Meitner makes conceptual link

The evidence we want is that stuff that happened between 1934 and 1939! (A) matches this neatly.


The Unintended
(B) We don't actually know that Meitner conducted any neutron bombardment experiments in 1938.
(C) This evidence certainly supports nuclear fission, but it supports Meitner's original findings, not the corroboration that would follow. Additionally, this evidence is quite recent and leads relatively quickly to Meitner's conceptual link.
(D) As in (C), this evidence certainly supports nuclear fission, but it supports Meitner's original findings, not the corroboration that would follow. Additionally, this evidence is quite recent and leads relatively quickly to Meitner's conceptual link.
(E) It is not the fact that the products went unidentified for so long that is the relevant evidence, it is what the products actually are that is the relevant evidence.

Please let me know if these posts completely answer your question, ericha3535!