The seventeenth-century physicist Sir Isaac Newton is remembered chief

Can someone please explain why B is the answer and not E?

I felt this was an easier one if I think of the other LSAT CR questions I have seen . Reasoning below:

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.- No mention of the role of historians, so OUT
(B) Advances in science are hastened when reports of experiments, whether successful or not, are available for review by other scientists. I have highlighted 'trying unsuccessfully' and 'alchemists...published' - basically he was trying to replicate or repeat their work unsuccessfully. So if alchemists had chronicled their findings it would have helped Newton
(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. Irrelevant
(D) Increasing specialization-within the sciences makes it difficult for scientists in one field to understand the principles of other fields.No mention of it anywhere
(E) The seventeenth-century alchemists could have achieved their goals only if their experiments had been subjected to public scrutiny.How do we conclude this statement? so OUT

The author concludes that "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." We need an answer choice that explains why publishing those results would have advanced chemistry in the eighteenth century.


Choice (E) suggests that alchemy could have been more advanced if the alchemists of the seventeenth century had published the results of their experiments. But we need to explain why publishing the results of alchemy experiments might have benefited the field of chemistry. Choice (E) is not relevant to the author's conclusion and can be eliminated.


We know that Newton conducted alchemy experiments in secret. The author concludes that publishing the results of such experiments would have contributed to the field of chemistry. But is this a logical conclusion, even if those experiments were unsuccessful?

Choice (B) explains that publishing the results of such experiments WOULD have hastened advances in science (i.e. chemistry), even if the experiments were not successful. Thus, publishing the results of unsuccessful alchemy experiments, such as those conducted in secret by Newton, would have advanced the field of chemistry.

This explains the author's conclusion, so choice (B) is the best answer.

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.

So, here we need to find out the assumption which leads to the conclusion that 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.

On negating, Advances in science are hastened when reports of experiments, whether successful or not, are available for review by other scientists, the statement looks like Advances in science are not hastened when reports of experiments, whether successful or not, are available for review by other scientists

The conclusion is demolished, hence B is the answer.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.