RC Question 27 Explanation
DISCUSSION: You’ll want to support the answer using a reference from the passage. But make sure to read all the answers before trying to support or eliminate some.
If you remembered lines 33-34 then this was an easy question, otherwise it was hard. That’s why it’s important to have a clear idea of the passage before starting, even if it means rereading some sections.
___________
- The experimental physicists didn’t disagree with the theoretical findings. They just didn’t expect fission to happen from bombardment. (lines 20-22)
- The passage never mentions anyone revising the earlier theoretical work. Presumably it was correct.
- Actually, Hahn did identify these by-products. Read the second part of the third paragraph, especially lines 42-44.
- We’re never told about experiments splitting other types of atoms.
- CORRECT. See lines 33-34. Physicists recognized the dangers, that’s one reason they hadn’t analyzed the by-products of bombarded uranium.
Ok. I still think “neglect” = “disregard” = “ignore/not pay attention to” (I’m a vocab-y person)…and they did ignore the theoretical calculations, ESPECIALLY because they didn’t think it was possible in the bombardment context. I don’t think neglect can mean neglect as in “fail to care for properly” because it’s not like they’re taking care of or could take care of (LOL) the calculations. I’m convinced the LSAT ppl must think “developments” is not the same as the calculations….do you think it is the same?
Huh?
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment below?:
Didn’t the community disregard the theoretical calculations because they thought they were unrealistic?–“A common view was that a neutron’s breaking apart a uranium nucleus would be analogous to a pebble, thrown through a window, causing a house to collapse.” (22-25).
____________
If you do agree, isn’t neglecting/disregarding theoretical calculations pretty close to “neglected earlier theoretical developments”? If you had made the argument that “theoretical developments” was too broad — i.e. broader than calculations, I would probably have bought that but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying here… ?
Oops, I didn’t reread the question/passage carefully enough.
So, the physicists did not neglect the earlier developments. They accepted them. They just didn’t realize how the theoretical developments would work in practice. If you read all of paragraph 2 this should be clear:
Lines 20-22 say that researchers were not receptive to breaking atoms apart “in THIS context”. Lines 22-25 show that the scientists had considered the possibility that neutrons would break apart uranium, but they thought it was as unlikely as a pebble collapsing a house.
So the scientists agreed that atoms could be split apart, but they didn’t think it would apply in the case of the neutron experiments. I mean, this is *nuclear physics* – it’s hard stuff. The fact that the scientists ended up being wrong doesn’t mean they disregarded the theoretical calculations.
I’m editing out my earlier comment because it was wrong.
Me again. I took FOREVER deciding between A and E, thinking E was too easy. I see it’s correct but I don’t totally get why A is wrong. You’re explanation regarding A about “disagreeing” doesn’t really make sense to me because neglecting does not mean disagreeing. It means to disregard. Didn’t the community disregard the theoretical calculations because they thought they were unrealistic?–“A common view was that a neutron’s breaking apart a uranium nucleus would be analogous to a pebble, thrown through a window, causing a house to collapse.” (22-25).
Thoughts?
“Too easy” is rarely an actual trap. It usually means the answer is right.On A I said the scientists DID NOT disagree. They merely neglected to take the theoretical calculations seriously.
That was wrong. See my other comment below.