Gmat1008 wrote:
The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton is remembered chiefly for his treatises on motion and gravity. But Newton also conducted experiments secretly for many years based on the arcane theories of alchemy, trying unsuccessfully to transmute common metals into gold and produce rejuvenating elixirs. If the alchemists of the seventeenth century had published the results of their experiments, chemistry in the eighteenth century would have been more advanced than it actually was.
Which one of the following assumptions would allow the conclusion concerning eighteenth-century chemistry to be properly drawn?
(A) Scientific progress is retarded by the reluctance of historians to acknowledge the failures of some of the great scientists.
(B) Advances in science are hastened when reports of experiments, whether successful or not, are available for review by other scientists.
(C) Newton's work on motion and gravity would not have gained wide acceptance if the results of his work in alchemy had also been made public.
(D) Increasing specialization-within the sciences makes it difficult for scientists in one field to understand the principles of other fields.
(E) The seventeenth-century alchemists could have achieved their goals only if their experiments had been subjected to public scrutiny.
#LSAT
The argument concludes that eighteenth century chemistry would have been more advanced than it was if seventeenth century alchemists would have published the results of their experiments. Why? We're told that there were seventeenth century alchemists (of whom Newton is listed as an example) who conducted experiments. We're not told that any of these alchemists' experiments were successful, just that they had conducted some unsuccessful experiments.
We're asked to find a link that would ensure the argument's conclusion is properly drawn. Answer choice (B) builds a bridge between publishing experiments (successful or not) and advances in science. One can speculate as to why publicizing unsuccessful experiments would have advanced science, though it's not needed based on the argument. For example, if Newton had published his unsuccessful, maybe there would have been less alchemists trying to conduct the same experiments who could have then been working on new approaches that would have led to advances in science. The reason why is really not important for this argument.
Incorrect Answers
(A) does not address the lack of publication of scientific research. The reluctance of historians to acknowledge the failures of great scientists is irrelevant. The important thing is whether the publication of research would have led to advances in science.
(C) undermines the conclusion by suggesting that Newton's important science would have been questioned if he had published his less credible research.
(D) is out of scope. The argument never mentions increasing specialization in science.
(E) places a requirement on the success of alchemists but does nothing to ensure the advance of science.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long