LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
|
#73022
Hi Y.R.,

By saying that the rods don't contain significant amounts of tellurium, the stimulus is telling us that the rods basically don't contain any tellurium, meaning the contamination couldn't have only from the rods. "Insignificant amounts" would be synonymous with "negligible," which would be very unlikely to then show up as contamination in the atmosphere. But we have enough tellurium to measure, so the rods couldn't be the only source.

Hope this clears things up!
User avatar
 ashpine17
  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: Apr 06, 2021
|
#88334
So did those isotopes ultimately come from the core? Just not directly from it by indirectly via steam?
User avatar
 German.Steel
  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2021
|
#98217
In my opinion, this is a horrific question because of the "dissolve" issue. Merriam-Webster's top definition for dissolve is: "to cause to disperse or disappear: DESTROY." Granted, there is an additional definition provided, which is: "to cause to pass into a solution." Under this chemistry-specific alternative definition, (B) makes perfect sense here. But under the most commonly-understood definition of "dissolve," it's a mockery that (B) is the credited answer.

I guess my point is, if they had just replaced "dissolved by steam" with "incorporated into steam" (or something similar), then there would have been no confusion around (B) as the credited answer. But choosing language that hinges on understanding a certain chemistry-specific definition in order to draw the proper inference is sloppy test-writing. Boo! Hiss! Do better, LSAC.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5191
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#98549
Interesting, GermanSteel - I never thought for a moment about destruction when I saw "dissolve." My first thought was like putting sugar in my coffee - not exactly a scientific mindset! I think the authors were relying on us having an everyday, commonsense working understanding of dissolving.

This stimulus breaks down pretty simply, in my view, with no need to make it more complex.

This stuff can only have come from one of two places.

One of them couldn't have happened (fuel rods).

For the other one to happen, there are two options - direct or indirect.

Direct doesn't explain it, so it must have been indirect. That's through the steam. So we look for an answer that says that the steam did it.

Keep it simple! The LSAT requires no specialized knowledge, so stay out of the dictionary and deal with your common, everyday understanding of what they said.
User avatar
 lemonade42
  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: Feb 23, 2024
|
#106463
I originally chose A because it says "isotopes of iodine, tellurium, and cesium-- but no heavy isotopes" were found in the atmosphere. So from that, I assumed tellurium is not a heavy isotope. And then the stimulus says "radioactive material ejected into the atmosphere directly from the core would include heavy isotopes". So wouldn't that suggest that "radioactive material ejected into the atmosphere directly from the core would not include tellurium (because it is not a heavy isotope)"
which is A?
User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#106521
Hi lemonade,

Unfortunately, you're making a logical error in your analysis.

You are correct that tellurium is not a heavy isotope, which is established in the first sentence of the stimulus as you pointed out.

The stimulus also says "radioactive material ejected into the atmosphere directly from the core would include heavy isotopes." Notice how I emphasized the word "include" in this sentence. What this means is that there would be heavy isotopes found within the radioactive material, but this does not mean that this would be the only material found. It would be perfectly fine (and probably true) to find a mix of heavy isotopes and other materials in the radioactive materials (including possibly tellurium). As long as some heavy isotopes are in the mix, then they are included in the materials found.

The main problem with Answer A, which is common in many wrong answers to Must Be True/Most Strongly Supported questions, is that the answer incorrectly mixes different terms/ideas in the stimulus. The stimulus states that spent fuels rods never have significant amounts of tellurium isotopes, not the core. We actually do know that the core contains tellurium isotopes from the last sentence of the stimulus.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.