Q27

[ttunden]

can anyone explain why the correct ac is E instead of A or even C? i was able to spot where E was said in the passage( line 33). I thought the answer would be A because the author did say they neglected the calculations and were not even receptive to the possibility of nuclei being split.

[Lpm62229]

Keep in mind that According to the Passage means that you are literally pulling it out verbatim with minor changes out of the passage. if you look at line 34 it says it verbatim. Also its saying what is "true" not an author's opinion about them.

[alinanny]

I see E but I also see A in the passage. Lines 16 to 22 seem to say that even before the experiments some scientists had produced calculations showing that atoms break apart and that the neutron-bombardment experiments were not aiming for that result. However, they achieved that result just didn't know what they were seeing. (lines 10-13).
I don't get it. I am obviously missing something here. Can anyone help me with this question?
Thanks

[schmid215]

I see E but I also see A in the passage. Lines 16 to 22 seem to say that even before the experiments some scientists had produced calculations showing that atoms break apart and that the neutron-bombardment experiments were not aiming for that result. However, they achieved that result just didn't know what they were seeing. (lines 10-13).
I don't get it. I am obviously missing something here. Can anyone help me with this question?
Thanks

Sympathize with you on this one, but I don't think (A) works because neglect is a very strong word. To neglect something is to shun it or disregard it; it seems to entail contempt for, or a strong belief in the inferiority of, the thing in question. And while the scientists who did the experiments weren't receptive to the idea and did not take it into account when they evaluated the results, nothing in the passages implies contempt or any kind for the calculations showing atom splitting may be possible. It's almost so subtle as to be unfair, but I guess that's the way LSAC rolls. I missed it when I took this section as well. RC is very hard these days.

[zainrizvi]

Bigger issue is that the question for 27 which one of the following is true of the PHYSICS COMMUNITY.

Physics community includes both theoretical and experimental (italian and austrian) physicists. We have no reason to suggest physics community is equivalent to just experimental physicists. It's hardly fair to say the theoretical physicists neglected their own developments.

[cvoldstad]

I also chose A instead of E on this one but upon review I noticed why A would be wrong.

We are looking for something that was true of the Physics community during the 1930s neglected theoretical developments during the early part of the 1930s it was in 1939 that Meitner "provided the crucial theoretical connection" (10-11)

Thus still (barely) in the 1930s!

[yisiyu123]

I see E but I also see A in the passage. Lines 16 to 22 seem to say that even before the experiments some scientists had produced calculations showing that atoms break apart and that the neutron-bombardment experiments were not aiming for that result. However, they achieved that result just didn't know what they were seeing. (lines 10-13).
I don't get it. I am obviously missing something here. Can anyone help me with this question?
Thanks

I thought the same way as you

But after review I realize why this quote doesn't sopport the "neglect"
I think the author was trying to say that scientists back then DID acknowledge the possibility to break atoms apart(which is a chemical reaction), but the neutron's bombarded uranium was not a context that the break-apart thing would happen. They just regarded it as a pure physical phenomenon like a pebble causing a house to collapse.
Does it solve your problem?

[oyxy1111]

The question asks what's true of physics community during 1930s. This period actually includes Meitner's discovery.
Even if some early physicists neglected the theoretical developments, she didn't.
Any thoughts?

[robinzhang7]

When I was taking this section, (A) turned me off mostly because of its extremity. I would argue that "neglected" is COMPLETELY wrong because lines 20-22 show that these physicists disregarded the nuclear fission theoretical development "IN THAT CONTEXT." They could very well accept the possibility of nuclear fission, but only not that specific context. Neglect infers that the entire concept of nuclear fission was disregarded. That is not the case here. Hope that helps.

[erikwoodward10]

The question asks what's true of physics community during 1930s. This period actually includes Meitner's discovery.
Even if some early physicists neglected the theoretical developments, she didn't.
Any thoughts?

Exactly. And as others have mentioned "neglected" is far too strong, and we don't know enough about the rest of the "community". All good reasons to eliminate A.