DISCUSSION: This goes back to the very first sentence of the passage.
Often, in science, there is enough data to make a discovery. The problem is seeing the pattern in the data or making the right connections.
In this case, the relevant evidence was the results of neutron bombardment experiments carried out in Europe. Scientists hadn’t realized they had split atoms.
Several wrong answers mention work done in 1938. That’s when Hahn did his analysis and Meitner made the discovery. But line 63 says the evidence had been present for some time. So it’s referring to evidence from years before 1938.
- CORRECT. These experiments split the atom. But it took scientists a while to realize what they had done. They weren’t expecting the result. So the relevant evidence was present but scientists didn’t know what to do with it.
- Actually, it was Otto Hahn who produced the results that Meitner used. See the second half of the third paragraph.
- Hahn’s results led Meitner to her insight. But the same experiments had already been conducted, it’s just that no one bothered to do the analysis Hahn finally did in 1938.
- This is what Hahn finally figured out in 1938. But he could have figured it out years earlier if he had analyzed the bombardment experiments.
- The question asked about relevant evidence. The scientists had a lack of evidence because they didn’t examine the by products of bombardments. Only when they started examining these by-products did they get relevant evidence.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly