#16 - Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14646)

Author’s Perspective. The correct answer choice is (A)

This question asks why the discovery of NGF is important, from the perspective of the author. Since
the author referenced the Nobel Prize and the importance this discovery to biochemistry in general, and
because an entire paragraph is dedicated to the discoveries that Rita’s findings made possible, we should
look for an answer that underscores the significance of this contribution.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The last paragraph describes the more specific
understanding that subsequent research led to, and the first paragraph describes the contribution to
biochemistry as “crucial,” and indicates that the contribution led to Rita’s eventually winning the Nobel
Prize.

Answer choice (B): Since Rita actually expected many of the results that she eventually observed, there
is no support for the idea that the author believes anything about “unanticipated” results.

Answer choice (C): It seems that the discoveries in the last paragraph have been the most important from
the author’s perspective, rather than this particular confirmation. The author refers to the development as
“crucial” to biochemistry, and it is advisable to look for a choice that explains the crucial nature of the
development.

Answer choice (D): Levi-Montalcini’s experiments did show observable reactions in the tissues of
different species; however, the ultimate significance in these experiments lies in the fact that they led to
the expansion of knowledge of how the nervous system develops and functions.

Answer choice (E): The experiments did identify a substance, produced by mouse tumors, that
stimulates nerve growth. However, that was not the ultimate finding of this important scientific
discovery, so this choice is wrong.

[snowy]

Could someone explain again why A is correct rather than C?

For A, I did note that the author said it was crucial for the history of biochemistry, but that is broader than the nervous system specifically, so I was hesitant there. And then while the last paragraph did talk about subsequent findings, it attributed it to both Levi-Montalcini's work and subsequent research, so to me that means it could be possible that HER work discovered that more specific knowledge mentioned in A, rather than just paving the way for it.

Because of that, C seemed like a safer answer to me - I wasn't completely sold that this was the primary noteworthiness, but it didn't have the more significant (or so I thought) issues I mentioned with A.

Thanks a ton in advance!!

[Brook Miscoski]

snowy,

The passage referred to her work as a crucial development, and the remainder of the passage explained not only her work but also subsequent research. So (A), which is a fairly reserved choice noting that her work paved the way for some research, is a good choice.

You do have to be on the lookout for choices that introduce unsupported claims. (C) is very tricky--but look at the passage for where that hypothesis is confirmed. It isn't. Immature nerve cells die if they don't get NGF or if they're attacked by antibodies, but the passage doesn't say that the cell itself is programmed to die.