#24 - Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14311)

The correct answer choice is (D)

We should seek to prephrase an answer to this question. The physicists in line 16 suggested that
nuclear fission was theoretically possible, a hypothesis confirmed by Meitner’s insight regarding the
neutron bombardment experiments.

Answer choice (A): Although the calculations in question corroborated Meitner’s conclusion, there is
no reason to suspect that her insight depended upon these calculations.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice falls entirely outside the scope of the passage.

Answer choice (C): The author never suggested that Meitner’s insight was in any way relevant to the
question of whether atomic nuclei are stable.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because Meitner’s insight confirmed the
theoretical physicists’ prediction that nuclear fission was possible.

Answer choice (E): Even if Meitner’s insight did come after years of analyzing data gathered
between 1934 and 1938, there is no reason to believe that the theoretical physicists in question would
have been particularly pleased about that fact.

[15veries]

I'm not sure why B is wrong.
Wouldn't it make scientists glad if their work is accepted?

[Adam Tyson]

I would think so, 15, but let's take another look at the question we were asked to answer. The stem here asks us to identify which of the following is the most likely reason why those physicists would be happy about Meitner's conclusions. This is a form of Must Be True question - we need to prove the best answer based solely on the information provided in the passage.

Is there anything in the passage that says, or even suggests, that Meitner's work paved the way for, well, anything? Is there anything in the passage that suggests those physicists were, or were not, broadly accepted, or sought broader acceptance?

Now, attack this question with a prephrase - ask yourself "what might those guys be happy about?" Base your answer solely on what's in the passage and not on any speculation. What do we know about those physicists, the ones mentioned beginning at line 16? Not much - only that they "had produced calculations indicating that in principle it should be possible to break atoms apart". That's the sum total of what we know, just that they had said this should be possible. Now along comes Meitner and says it looks like that is exactly what happened. So, what about that would make them happy? The best prephrase, which matches our answer, is "because her work confirmed that they were right." Anything else goes beyond the facts provided in the passage and cannot be a correct answer. Paving the way for broader acceptance is new information that does not come from the facts given, so it is no more than speculation and is not nearly so well supported as answer D. D is the best answer because it is the only one supported by the facts of the passage with no speculation or new information.

Use this approach for most RC questions, relying on the passage to prove or support your answers without bringing in outside information. Something over 75% of all RC questions are in the Must Be True family and should be approached exactly this way, with the remainder mostly being of the Weaken and Strengthen variety.

Keep up the good work!

[15veries]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your answers, those are really helpful.
I see how they make wrong answers so appealing in modern RC and on the other day I missed 4 questions due to the last minute correction I made. (the ones I chose at first were correct...really frustrating when this happens.)
When do you think modern RC started by the way? I think the questions are much more trickier. Do you think the difficulties of passages also changed as well?

[Adam Tyson]

That hasn't been my experience, 15 - I haven't noticed a particular shift in difficulty. There may be some shifts in patterns in RC, much as there have been in the LR and LG sections, as different questions types come in and out of favor, and I'll admit that I haven't paid as much attention to that evolution as I have to the other sections, but I don't think the overall difficulty has changed, just as the rest of the test has remained roughly the same difficulty level for most of the past 25 years.

It could just be a matter of familiarity. As the test slowly evolves, newer material is more likely to be unfamiliar and innovative, while older material feels more comfortable. It's not inherently harder, but it can be more challenging just because it's new. In games, I'm thinking right now of the computer virus game from this past September, a game that was very innovative and unfamiliar, but which was ultimately not all that challenging once you got the hang of it. If we were to see another game like it in the near future I think we would be better prepared for it and it would be easier.

Be sure to study recent tests, especially as you get closer to your test date, so you can be sure to be up to speed on the latest trends in the test. You don't want to be caught unaware of something that was a recent innovation.

Good luck and keep at it!