Can anyone analyze this one? I picked C, the answer is B.
Thanks.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- shirando21
-
Thanks Received: 16
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 280
- Joined: July 18th, 2012
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q26
Hey Shirando,
Even on a question like this, which seems so very specific, it's important to keep your eye on the main point of the passage. In this case, it's about how a bunch of physicists were splitting atoms but they didn't even know it, primarily because they had expectations (see line 35: "because of the expectation that they would all be elements close to uranium in nuclear composition", and various others).
(A) There's no evidence that all of them doing the same thing would help. In fact, it's usually better for people to be trying lots of different things.
(B) This is the point of the passage.
(C) This is the opposite of the case. It's likely that even Meitner wouldn't have noticed the splitting occurring if they didn't know that it was at least theoretically possible. Either way, the passage never implies that their NOT knowing would have helped.
(D) This is a tricky answer. It seems like it would help to have lots of people on the case, but the passage never actually says that directly. In fact, it says that there were lots of people on the case, and it STILL didn't help.
(E) Given that uranium is where they found fission, it's unlikely that other substances would have helped.
Hope that makes sense. Let me know if not!
-t
Even on a question like this, which seems so very specific, it's important to keep your eye on the main point of the passage. In this case, it's about how a bunch of physicists were splitting atoms but they didn't even know it, primarily because they had expectations (see line 35: "because of the expectation that they would all be elements close to uranium in nuclear composition", and various others).
(A) There's no evidence that all of them doing the same thing would help. In fact, it's usually better for people to be trying lots of different things.
(B) This is the point of the passage.
(C) This is the opposite of the case. It's likely that even Meitner wouldn't have noticed the splitting occurring if they didn't know that it was at least theoretically possible. Either way, the passage never implies that their NOT knowing would have helped.
(D) This is a tricky answer. It seems like it would help to have lots of people on the case, but the passage never actually says that directly. In fact, it says that there were lots of people on the case, and it STILL didn't help.
(E) Given that uranium is where they found fission, it's unlikely that other substances would have helped.
Hope that makes sense. Let me know if not!
-t
2 posts Page 1 of 1