­Historian: In the collection of the Science Museum, London, there is

Claim of London Museum: The bottle contains dye that is the entire original batch created by Sir Perkin in 1856.

Historian Conceding a point in favour of claim: Sir Perkin made only a few grams of the substance (so it could be the entire original batch)

Historian's premises against the claim:
This batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye.
The early version that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle.

What is the historian trying to say? That the claim of London museum is false. He gives two reasons for that - one, that that original batch would have been completely used up for testing and second that the early version of the dye had an impure paste, not pure crystals as are there in the bottle.

The historian's statements imply that the bottle does not contain ____1____ at least in part because the substance in the bottle is ____2____.

ANSWER:

1 - Any of Perkins’ original batch of mauve dye (Historian tells us that the original batch would have been completely used up so it implies that the bottle should not have any of Perkins’ original batch of mauve dye)

2 - A crystalline form of the dye (One reason for insisting that it is not the original dye is that the substance in the bottle is crytalline while the early version had a paste, hence the use of the words 'at least in part' which show that this point was partly the reason the hsitorian insists that it is not the original dye))

KarishmaB @harshar9 how do you know it is not original dye because of the crystalline nature? Original dye and early versin are different and passage only says that early version had impure paste . We dont know about original dye being impure vs crystalline so how can we make this conclusion?­

How are choices A and c different

­Historian: In the collection of the Science Museum, London, there is a small bottle that is purported to contain the entire original batch of artificial mauve dye created by Sir William Perkin in his laboratory in 1856. Indeed, in his experiments that preceded his commercial production of mauve dyes, he made only a few grams of the substance, but this batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye. Also, the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle.

Statement: The historian's statements imply that the bottle does not contain ____1____ at least in part because the substance in the bottle is ____2____.

Select for 1 and for 2 the options that create the statement that is most strongly supported by the information above. Make only two selections, one in each column.

For 1, we need a choice that names something such that the historian's statements imply that the bottle does not contain it.

For 2, we need a choice that names something such that, according to the historian, its presence in the bottle indicates that the bottle does not contain what's named by the answer for 1.

Let's go through the answer choices and see which ones work.

Any of Perkin's original batch of mauve dye

This choice works for 1.

After all, the historian says the following:

in his experiments that preceded his commercial production of mauve dyes, he made only a few grams of the substance, but this batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye

We can see that the fact stated by the historian that the batch Perkin made before his commercial production of mauve dyes "would likely have been completed used up" indicates that the bottles does not contain "Any of Perkin's original batch of mauve dye." After all, if the batch made before his production of commercial dyes was "used up," then the bottle could not contain it.

Select for 1.

A dye produced in Perkin's laboratory

The statements in the passage do not support this choice for 1.

After all, while the passage indicates that the dye he made before his commercial production would have been used up, the dye in the bottle could have been from another batch, such as a commercial batch, produced in Perkin's laboratory.

Also, this choice does not work for 2.

After all, the fact that the bottle contained "A dye produced in Perkins' laboratory" would indicate that the bottle did not contain anything named by the other choices, since all the other choices name things that are or could be dyes produced in Perkin's laboratory.

Eliminate.

A dye created in 1856

This choice does not not work for 1.

After all, while the statements in the passage indicate that the original batch created in 1856 was "used up" and thus could not be in the bottle, no statements indicate that a different batch from 1856 didn't end up in the bottle.

Also, this choice does not work for 2.

After all, the fact that the bottle contained "A dye created in 1856" would not indicate that it did not contain anything named by the other choices, since all the other choices name things that are or could be dyes created in 1856.

Eliminate.

A commercially produced dye

This choice is tricky. After all, it could appear to be correct for 1 since the passage says the following:

Also, the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle.

So, we could get the impression that the substance in the bottle is not "A commercially produced dye" because the passage indicates that "the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially" was not of "the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle."

Notice, however, that the point about commercially produced dye consisting of an "impure paste" is about "the early version of the mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially." So, "the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle" could have been a later version of the commercially produced dye.

Thus, the bottle could have contained "A commercially produced dye."

Also, this choice does not work for 2 since the statements in the passage do not indicate that the substance in the bottle is a commercially produced dye.

Eliminate.

A crystalline form of the dye

This choice clearly does not work for 1 since the passage says the following:

The pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle

We see that the passage indicates that the bottle did, rather than did not, contain "A crystalline form of the dye."

This choice does work for 2, however.

After all, the passage says the following:

Also, the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle.

While that statement is about "the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially" rather than about "Perkin's original batch of mauve dye," it's logical that, if the early version of the dye that Perkin produced commerically consisted of an impure paste, then previous batches, such as the original batch of dye, would also have consisted of an impure paste.

So, the fact that the bottle contains ''the pure crystalline form of the substance" indicates that the substance in the bottle was produced after commercial production began and thus would not be the original batch.

Thus, this choice names a reason why the substance in the bottle was not "Any of Perkin's original batch of mauve dye."

Select for 2.

Correct answer: Any of Perkin's original batch of mauve dye, The pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle­

­Original batch means the first batch. Early version means the first few batches. If the first few batches had paste, how can the original not have it? The question uses different terms does not mean that the terms are not related. We must use linguistic logic to understand how terms are connected.
In 1856 he could have created many batches. He had a whole year to do so. Hence (C) is not correct.

"The historian's statements imply that the bottle does not contain any of Perkin's original batch of mauve dye at least in part because the substance in the bottle is a crystalline form of the dye."­

1. "Any of Perkin's original batch of mauve dye": The historian mentions that Perkin's original batch of mauve dye, produced in 1856, would likely have been completely used up during his experiments. This implies that it's improbable for any of the original batch to still exist, especially in the form found in the bottle.

2. "A crystalline form of the dye": The historian also notes that the early version of the mauve dye Perkin produced commercially was an impure paste, not a pure crystalline form
=> the substance in the bottle is described as a pure crystalline form, which differs from what Perkin originally produced.

karishma - This way a commercially produced dye would also be correct for the first ans option choice since if the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste then the original batch commercially consisted impure taste and since the bottle had crystalline form, then it is not commercially produced dye?

Thanks

“A commercially produced dye”

• The historian mentions that commercial production consisted of an impure paste, not a crystalline form.
• The bottle contains a crystalline form.
• So, it’s unlikely the bottle contains a commercially produced dye.

Why “Any of Perkin’s original batch” is Stronger:

• It is ruled out not by composition, but by quantity and usage.
• The bottle cannot contain it simply because it no longer exists
• This is stronger and more conclusive than ruling out based on form.